TOWARD A CONSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH TO SOCIAL PROBLEMS: ETHICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RAISED BY APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS

The alternatives may be so desperate for the agency that it must on occasion resort to them. The following alternatives describe a situation in which the prison (hospital) considers itself as coerced into coercing. The institution is the subject (left) and the inmate is the dispenser of consequences (right):

[11] 1. Agency relaxes confinement (etc.) [arrow right] Aversive consequences delivered.

2. Agency tightens confinement [arrow right] No consequences delivered.

If the inmate manages to deliver aversive consequences during Line 2, this will not affect definition of the situation, since it is defined by aversive zero. Indeed, the institution may tighten its screws to produce the zero required.

Before discussing the sets which define voluntary consent, three points should be reiterated regarding coercion. First, it is defined by the alternatives in the sets, which generally can be classified as negative reinforcement. Second, coercion is defined with reference to a method of maintaining the specific target behaviors of the subject by the agency defining the controlling contingencies. Thus, while participation in a given program may be under coercive control, other patterns may not be. The controls exerted over the agent's controlling behavior in this situation can be varied. They can come from inmates, colleagues, superiors, etc., and must be separately examined, with agent as subject in all the sets of alternatives governing his behavior (as must be done for the inmate, as well). Third, institutions, especially prisons, may apply coercive control over many behavior patterns in accord with implicit or societal requirements. Prison systems are handed judgments which include possibility of "time off for good conduct." Their repertoires and the conditions under which they operate may make coercive control necessary. Evaluation of societal requirements, institutional practices, etc., would require an essay which is far beyond the scope of this paper and also my factual and analytic repertoires. I restrict myself to the educational and therapeutic areas in which I have some experience. What is involved is that institutional convenience (which includes social demands, and is not intended pejoratively) not be confused with correctional, educational, or therapeutic programs, and not be rationalized thereby.

CONSENT

The discussion of contingencies of coercion noted that making positive reinforcement contingent on program participation could bear only a superficial resemblance to noncoercive situations. Reinforcement was considered superficial when diminution of institutionally provided aversive control was also attached. Such diminution could be in the form of early release or in the form of allowing the subject to work his way up to standard custodial conditions, after he had been deprived of them.

We may now define contingencies of consent. The behaviors of the subject are on the left and the consequences provided are on the right. Aversive confinement is in parentheses because it may not be involved in nonpenal institutions: