Self-editing: On the relation between behavioral and psycholinguistic approaches

Abstract

In Skinner's (1957) conceptual analysis, the process of self-editing is integral to the dynamic complexities of multiply determined verbal behavior, but the analysis has generated little in the way of an experimental analysis. The majority of scientific work on self-editing has taken place within linguistics and cognitive psycholinguistics. Here we compare and contrast behavioral and cognitive psycholinguistic approaches to self-editing, highlighting points of contact that can be identified despite fundamental differences in theoretical styles. We conclude that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive on all dimensions, and suggest that a consideration of cognitive psycholinguistic research may help to spur an experimental analysis of self-editing from a behavioral perspective.

Translational contributions of the experimental analysis of behavior

“…One possible example is the self-editing of verbal behavior, a phenomenon that many (including Skinner, 1957) have suggested is fundamental to understanding human communication. Cogni-tive psycholinguists have devised several means of experimentally inducing self-editing in the laboratory, although none of these produce selfediting in all participants, and the effects are not necessarily replicable within subjects (see Epting & Critchfield, 2006). The norm in psycholinguistic experiments, therefore, is to manipulate experimental variables across groups and compare in terms of the prevalence of self-editing.…”

The Integration of Speaker and Listener Responses: A Theory of Verbal Development

“…For example, when certain audiences are not present, adults continue to emit both speaker and listener responses aloud-for example, when they talk to their computer, seatbelt alarm, a recalcitrant drawer or shirt button, or their pets. Clearly, audience control, or the lack thereof, is at work here (Epting & Critchfield, 2006). A more advanced level of self-talk occurs when a writer, in the process of editing, rotates the covert speaker and listener roles.…”

Crucial Issues in the Applied Analysis of Verbal Behavior: Reflections on Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When the Stakes Are High

“…Outside behavior analysis, conversation has been vigorously studied; a great deal already is known about patterns in conversation that require explanation and, potentially, intervention. Often it is possible to appreciate others' published data at a descriptive level and use them as a basis for extending behavioral analyses (for an example involving psycholinguistic data on self-editing, see Epting & Critchfield, 2006). Unfortunately, we behavior analysts sometimes fault the theoretical perspectives that other scholars apply to data without giving a great deal of attention to the data themselves.…”

“…5, on silence as a conversational byproduct of aversive control). Skinner (1957) discussed self-editing at length, but this does not guarantee that his analysis explains or supports technologies that involve all forms of self-editing (e.g., Epting & Critchfield, 2006). This is particularly true given that basic research on aversive control (which is thought to underpin self-editing) has been neglected in behavior analysis for many decades (Critchfield & Rasmussen, 2007).…”