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

[12] 1. Ongoing program participation [arrow right] Standard custodial consequences (and standard aversive confinement).

2. Program participation absent [arrow right] Standard custodial consequences (and standard aversive confinement).

3. Ongoing program participation [arrow right] Program-specific consequences.

4. Program participation absent [arrow right] No program-specific consequences.

Stated otherwise, the institution provides or eliminates no custodial (or confinement) consequences contingent on participation or nonparticipation in the program. What maintains participation is the delivery and nondelivery of consequences which derive from the program itself. The presence of this set of options defines a noncoercive situation.

The program-specific consequences are not entirely divorced from institutional delivery. It is the institution which sets up the system. It may engage its agents in the constructional spiral-analysis discussed earlier. It will be recalled that this could involve assay of the natural ecology of the inmate outside institutional walls, or an attempt to develop resources there. These would be necessary to maintain outcomes mutually agreed upon by patient and agency and toward whose construction (or reinstatement) the program is directed.

This method not only defines the options as noncoercive, but as involving full consent. It is also therapeutic or correctional.

Other options may be made available whose goals fall far short of those described. They may, however, be noncoercive if they meet the requirements of Set 12. Thus, for example, although changes in custodial and confinement conditions in prison or in a mental hospital are not contingent on enrollment in a chess class, the institution provides the necessary facilities, which include instructional resources. These may or may not include p.i., and maintenance of program behavior may or may not be affected. The institution may set up chess tournaments and prizes, or provide intramural work for electricians, and thereby increase the likelihood of learning to play chess or attaining competence as an electrician. Other possibilities also exist, including group therapy sessions and various token economies associated with other courses or programs for acquiring skills or other improvements. To circumvent the possibility that such programs merely relieve a boredom, imposed by the institution, Cohen (personal communication) has suggested that a variety of programs be available so that choice of a particular one can not be considered coercive.

The issue relates to a fundamental one. It was noted that when the institution deprives a person of what is available elsewhere in the institution in order to use it as a reinforcer to produce the behavior it wants, the situation is defined as coercive, since it can be defined by decrease of aversive density contingent on participation.