Proximity coefficients as a measure of interrelationships in sequences of behavior

Abstract

Although a range of methods allow investigators to measure the local dependencies among behaviors in a sequence, only indirect methods are available for measuring the interrelationships among behaviors across an entire sequence. This article introduces a new "proximity" coefficient that measures interrelationships among behaviors as a direct function of their intrinsic organization within a sequence. The coefficient does not depend on a user-defined "window" of analysis and provides an efficient use of data that facilitates comparisons across actors, over time periods, and between single cases. An analysis of artificial data shows further properties of the coefficient, including a diagonal value that reflects the degree to which a behavior is reciprocated, and an asymmetry in values that depicts the relative precedence among behaviors. Extensions of the coefficient to the multivariate case, and its relation to existing methods of analyzing sequences, are discussed.

RAP: A computer program for exploring similarities in behavior sequences using random projections

“…Common methods for detecting such patterns include the fitting of Markov models in continuous and discrete time (e.g., Gardner 8 Hartmann, 1984), survival analysis in continuous tinie (e.g., Griffin & Gardner, 1989; Stoolmiller & Snyder, p006), lag-sequential analysis (e.g., Bakeman, 1978;Bakeman & Quera, 1995a;Sackett, 1979), log-linear model fitting to multidimensional contingency lag tables (e.g., Bakeman, Adamson, & Strisik, 1995; Bakeman & Quera, 1995b), and, more recently, analysis of sequence organization based on proximity coefficients among behavioral codes (Taylor, 2006). What these methods have in common is (1) the aim of summarizing relationships in the sequences by means of quantitative global measures, and (2) the use of asymptotic statistical techniques for obtainingp values that indicate whether or not the sequences contain patterns, and for pointing to statistically significant temporal relationships among behavioral codes.…”

Talking heads : interviewing suspects from a cultural perspective

“…If the coefficient equals 1.00, one behaviour precedes the second behaviour immediately without exception. A coefficient between these two limits reflects differing amounts of proximity between two behaviours on average, with a greater value indicating less intermittent behaviours (i.e., more proximity; for a detailed description, see Taylor, 2006;Taylor & Donald, 2007). The absolute value of the proximity coefficient is typically less important than the relative value of the coefficient across cue-response contingencies.…”

“…A final explanation might be that the effectiveness of (kind) behaviour is dependent on the context in which it is presented (cf. Taylor, 2006;Taylor & Donald, 2004, 2007. Remember that the study reported in Chapter 3 showed that being kind preceding (but not following) rational arguments significantly increased the propensity of high-context suspects to ultimately confess.…”

“…Thus, rather than considering the immediate relations among behaviours (i.e., conditional relationships), the proximity approach considers the relationships among all behaviours within a sequence of codes as degrees of proximity. In so doing, the coefficient reduces the possibility of overlooking important delayed associations between cues and responses over time (Taylor, 2006).…”

“…Because the coding was performed at the level of speaking turns, the codes alternated between representing the utterances of the police officer and the utterances of the suspect. The interrelationships among these codes were examined using proximity coefficients (Taylor, 2006). The proximity coefficient provides a measure of the immediacy with which particular responses follow particular cues on average over an interaction sequence.…”