The Behavior Analyst 2002, 25, 191-200 No. 2 (Fall)

Countercontrol in Behavior AnalysisDennis J. Delprato

Eastern Michigan UniversityCountercontrol is a functional class of behavior that is part of Skinner's analysis of social behavior.Countercontrol refers to behavioral episodes comprised of socially mediated aversive controllingconditions and escape or avoidance responses that do not reinforce, and perhaps even punish, con-trollers' responses. This paper suggests that neglect of countercontrol in modern behavior analysisis unfortunate because the concept applies to interpersonal and social relations the fundamentaloperant principle that human behavior is both controlled and controlling-humans are not passiveand inflexible. Countercontrol is addressed here in terms of conceptual status, contemporary devel-opments in behavior analysis, its importance in a behavior-analytic approach to freedom and culturaldesign, applications, and research. The main conclusion is that Skinner's formulation of counter-control is scientifically supported and worthy of increased prominence in behavior analysis.Key words: countercontrol, coercion, control, aversive control, social contingencies

Control is one of the most basic con-cepts in conceptual, experimental, andapplied analyses of behavior, just ascontrol is fundamental to all experi-mental sciences (e.g., Skinner, 1953,1972). To study the functional relationsbetween environment and behavior, be-havior analysts manipulate (control)environmental variables to determinetheir effect on behavior. Stimulus con-trol and schedule control are elemen-tary principles. These familiar forms ofcontrol are defined by operations andconditions external to the behaver.Thus, we think of scientists controllingtheir subject matter (the behavior of or-ganisms) by manipulating environmen-tal stimuli and contingencies.

This paper argues that behavioranalysis has also recognized a form ofcontrol that is, in certain ways, the re-ciprocal of scientist and environmentalcontrol. In particular, Skinner (1953,1968, 1971, 1972, 1974, 1978) pro-posed countercontrol as necessary forcomplete behavior analyses of humanbehavior. Although Skinner referred tocountercontrol on many occasions andthe concept occasionally appearsthroughout the behavior-analytic andrelated literatures, it has received littlesystematic attention. The purpose of

Address correspondence to the author at 6945Ann Arbor-Saline Road, Saline, Michigan48176.

the present paper is to examine whatone commentator (Platt, 1973) called a"pioneering concept" in behavioranalysis.

Because, almost without exception(see Baum, 1994), treatments of behav-ioral countercontrol have been devel-oped by Skinner, this presentation willrely heavily on Skinner's work. Theneglect of countercontrol in behavioranalysis is unfortunate because thisconcept applies to interpersonal andsocial relations the fundamental oper-ant principle that human behavior isboth controlled and controlling-hu-mans are not passive and inflexible intheir responses to social and interper-sonal influence. As I will argue, coun-tercontrol is a way in which individualsregain behavioral freedom when facedwith aversive controlling attempts ofothers, including those of behavior an-alysts. Indeed, with countercontrol, be-havior analysts can highlight positivecontributions of a behavioral approachby recognizing that everyone has thepotential to overcome socially basedaversive attempts at control. This paperconcludes that Skinner's formulation ofcountercontrol is sound and stronglysupports increased attention to counter-control in behavior analysis.DEFINING COUNTERCONTROLCountercontrol is human operant be-

havior that occurs in response to social

191

192 DENNIS J. DELPRATO

aversive control. When other peoplegenerate aversive conditions, the recip-ient (i.e., "behaver" or "controllee")may escape or avoid and thereby re-inforce controllers' responses; howev-er, the behaver may escape or avoid inways that do not reinforce, and mayeven punish, controllers' responses(Skinner, 1953, 1971, 1974). Instead ofacting in accord with controlling con-ditions, controllees sometimes counter-control; that is, they oppose controllingattempts by moving out of range, at-tacking, or passively resisting.

Skinner discussed two main types ofcountercontrol; in each, controllees'actions do not result in reinforcementof controllers' responses. One includesreference to aggressive overt operantresponses (counterattack) followingemotional behavior elicited by aversivecontrolling conditions. The other classdoes not require emotional and aggres-sive behavior. When Skinner (1953) in-troduced countercontrol in chapter 20of Science and Human Behavior, hesuggested that attempts at control that(a) use force or (b) result in an ultimateadvantage to controllers, in oppositionto the interest of the controllees, oftenare aversive and sometimes lead con-trollees to "show an emotional reac-tion ... including operant behaviorwhich injures or is otherwise aversiveto the controller. Such behavior mayhave been reinforced [in the past] bythe reduction in similar aversive con-sequences" (p. 321). Skinner's justifi-cation for applying countercontrol inthe analysis of responses to attempts atsocial control was that humans aremuch more likely to have a requisitehistory of reinforcement for respond-ing aggressively to social control thanto nonsocial control. By way of ex-ample, Skinner suggested that aggres-sion might be expected when a groupof people blocks our way on a side-walk because such behavior has pre-viously alleviated similar social con-ditions. On the other hand, aggressionis less likely to have been reinforcedwhen our way was blocked by a fallentree branch. At this point, Skinner

treated countercontrol as escape from,or avoidance of, aversive stimuli byway of aggressive topographies pre-ceded by emotional behavior. In nu-merous other places in Science andHuman Behavior (pp. 323-324, 347,358-360, 383, 400-401, 411, 447), hediscussed the concept without any ref-erence to emotion and aggression. Inthese cases, behavers countercontrol bymoving out of range of controllers orby resisting passively.

Behavior analysis emphasizes thatidentical response topographies can bea function of different controlling var-iables. Any of the response forms thatparticipate in countercontrolling be-havior episodes, under other condi-tions, can be a function of positive re-inforcement, for example. Yet certaintopographies occur relatively frequent-ly in the presence of aversive condi-tions established by others and func-tion as countercontrolling behaviorsbecause they result in either contingentnonreinforcement or aversive stimula-tion for attempts at countercontrol(Sidman, 1989; Skinner, 1953, 1968,1971, 1972, 1974, 1978). Given thatescape and avoidance are the function-al behavior classes that aversive con-trol occasions, the behavior of control-lers who use aversive methods is re-inforced and thus not countercontrolledwhen controllees escape from or avoidaversive stimuli by acting in waysspecified by the controllers (Skinner,1971): Students turn in homework,workers increase their production, ge-riatric patients sit quietly. Neverthe-less, people may escape or avoid inother ways (i.e., by countercontrollingbehavior). Countercontrol escape andavoidance, although not restricted toany particular topographies, often takecommon forms including attack, ag-gression, assassination, murder, di-vorce, military desertion, religiousapostasy, religious reformation, pro-test, revolt, rebellion, revolution, de-fection, dropping out, truancy, vandal-ism, absenteeism, criticism, sabotage,slowdowns, strikes, boycotts, inaction,failure to comply (as with medical or

COUNTERCONTROL 193

psychosocial recommendations or re-quests), active or passive resistance, in-attention, daydreaming, quitting, feign-ing illness, cheating, disrupting classesor meetings, and even "turning on thecharm."

Countercontrol is not a basic prin-ciple of behavior. Because countercon-trol is always either avoidance or es-cape behavior, this behavior class isonly unique insofar as the behaver is(a) confronted with some form of aver-sive interpersonal or social controllingstimulation and (b) responds to opposecontrol rather than to reinforce it by"giving in." Countercontrol directs ourattention to the many ways in whichhumans use aversive controlling pro-cedures, often inadvertently, and thepredictable outcomes of doing so.

Countercontrolling responses neednot invariably be effective. Just as notall instances of responses maintainedby positive reinforcement must pro-duce positive reinforcers, not all re-sponses maintained by negative rein-forcement will result in escape oravoidance and nonreinforcement orpunishment of the controller's respons-es. The empirical justification for clas-sifying a particular response as escapeor avoidance-a past history of nega-tive reinforcement contingencies-of-ten will not be available to the analyst.However, the proposition that such ahistory is functionally related to coun-tercontrolling behavior is empiricallytestable.

CONCEPTUAL STATUSOF COUNTERCONTROL

Control was a central concept inSkinner's behaviorism and was espe-cially emphasized in Science and Hu-man Behavior (1953), which containedentire chapters entitled "The Control-ling Environment," "Self-Control,""Personal Control," "Group Control,""Economic Control," "Culture andControl," and the final one, "TheProblem of Control." The concept ofcountercontrol derives from the fun-damental behavior-analytic position

that behavior is always controlled orcaused (e.g., Skinner, 1947, 1953).Here the behavior analyst takes thecommonly accepted scientific view ofa lawful subject matter, hence one ame-nable to prediction and control.

Skinner (1953, 1981) argued for atype of causality that was discoveredin the study of living systems. Accord-ing to the principle of consequentialcausality or selection by consequences,responses occur and are followed byenvironmental consequences that con-trol the occurrences of similar respons-es in the future. There is an inherentreciprocity of behavior and environ-ment because environmental conse-quences are not independent of behav-ior. Consequences are produced by be-havior; thus, behavior controls conse-quences and is in turn controlled bythem (Skinner, 1953, 1974). By start-ing with the axioms of behavior as al-ways controlled and consequential cau-sality, Skinner paved the way to a con-ceptualization of control as always en-vironmental but never separate frombehavior, for example, "We all control,and we are all controlled" (1953, p.438). Skinner (1974) suggested that"We often overlook the fact that hu-man behavior is also a form of con-trol" (p. 189), yet "That an organismshould act to control the world aroundit is as characteristic of life as breath-ing or reproduction" (p. 189). Thefoundation for countercontrol is thathuman behavior is both a function ofthe environment and a source of con-trol over it.

Skinner found that countercontrolwas indispensable in understanding hu-man behavior because of the preva-lence of aversive control in human re-lations. Skinner (1953, 1968, 1971,1972, 1974, 1978) identified manymethods of control used in interperson-al and cultural relations and suggestedthat some can be relatively nonaver-sive: supplying information, presentingopportunities for action, pointing outlogical relationships, appealing to rea-son, education, moral discourse, per-suasion, cajolery, seduction, incite-

194 DENNIS J. DELPRATO

ment, emotional conditioning of vari-ous sorts, certain procedures of moti-vational control, drugs, prompts, hints,suggestions, and positive reinforce-ment. Other more aversive methods in-clude authoritative commands, threatof force, force, threat of punishment,punishment, deprivation, removal ofpositive reinforcers, and restraint(Skinner, 1971, 1972). Contingenciesof survival have prepared humans tostruggle and escape when confrontedwith environmental conditions that areharmful or threatening (Skinner, 1971).Countercontrol is the class of escapeand avoidance behaviors occasionedby aversive environmental conditionsthat controllers establish.

Sidman (1989) devoted a book tothe deleterious individual and culturalconsequences of humans' use of aver-sive control. Like Skinner, Sidmanwarned of the harmful effects of coer-cion, including counterattack and otherforms of countercontrol.

COUNTERCONTROL ANDCONTEMPORARYDEVELOPMENTS

IN BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS

Analysis of countercontrol is facili-tated by recent developments in behav-ior analysis. Behavior analysts have re-fined the concept of environment andexpanded the concept of stimulus withthe introduction of setting factors orsetting events (Bijou & Baer, 1961,1978; Wahler & Fox, 1981), and therelated term, establishing operations(Michael, 1982, 1993). Briefly put,some behavior analysts now recom-mend the analytic advantage of addinga term that incorporates events notclearly handled by the three-term unit(i.e., discriminative stimulus, response,reinforcer). Setting events and estab-lishing operations refer to various en-vironmental conditions, including pre-vious stimulus-response interactions,that function to alter the momentaryprobability of responses and the func-tion of stimuli and consequences. Thisconceptualization prompts analysts to

include events more complex and oflonger durations than the typical dis-criminative stimulus in operant inter-actions. By this analysis, socially me-diated controlling conditions functionas setting factors or establishing oper-ations for countercontrolling responses.The newer framework enables behav-ior analysts to be more precise in anal-yses of countercontrol.

Indeed, the contemporary version ofbehavior analysis clarifies a conceptualaspect of countercontrol that is onlyimplicit in Skinner's presentation:Countercontrol can occur at two levels.According to Michael (1982, 1993),aversive stimulation typically is an es-tablishing operation. Michael (1993)classifies socially mediated aversivestimulation of the sort that is counter-controlled as learned or conditioned es-tablishing operations. At one level,countercontrolling behavior can resultin avoidance or escape from particularshort-term consequences, along withnonreinforcement or punishment of thecontroller's responses. For example, ateacher threatens a student with deten-tion and withdraws the specific threatwhen the student threatens the teacherwith a serious allegation. In other in-stances, countercontrolling responsesare reinforced when pervasive andlong-lasting coercive contingencies areremoved or made less aversive. For ex-ample, the student drops out of schoolor employees complain about a super-visor who subsequently reduces aver-sive control procedures. In this secondtype of case, individuals may avoid orescape specific short-term consequenc-es (e.g., threats, harsh reprimands) con-tingent on the response that occurs butalso avoid or escape long-standingaversive contingencies in which thoseconsequences participate. The aversivecontingencies that the countercontrol-ling response counters are setting fac-tors or establishing operations.

Willems (1974) suggested that ap-plied behavior analysis would profitfrom a more ecological-systems ap-proach. Ecobehavioral analysis is nowwell established (e.g., Rogers-Warren

COUNTERCONTROL 195

& Warren, 1977; Schroeder, 1990). Anecobehavioral approach is marked es-pecially by recognition that behavioralepisodes involve multiple interdepen-dent participating factors. When dataare obtained on two or more responsemeasures, otherwise undetected posi-tive or negative side effects of inter-ventions may appear (e.g., Wahler &Hann, 1987; Willems, 1974). Numer-ous basic (e.g., Delprato, 1986; Henton& Iversen, 1978) and applied investi-gations (e.g., Voeltz & Evans, 1982)have shown that interventions targetingand modifying one response are oftenaccompanied by response covariation,or changes in nontargeted responses.Response covariation or patterning is acharacteristic of behavioral organiza-tion apparent in many behavioral epi-sodes, including those called counter-control. Variables that coercively con-trol target responses often modify otherresponses we call countercontrollingones. Thus, countercontrol may in-clude changes in multiple componentsof behavior (i.e., nontargeted respons-es) and, in this way, fits well with theincreasing emphasis on ecological-sys-tems considerations in behavior analy-SiS.

IMPORTANCE OFCOUNTERCONTROL

Approximately 25 years after Skin-ner formally introduced the concept,Balsam and Bondy (1978) argued thatcountercontrol had yet to facilitateanalysis of complex behavior and im-plied that we would be better off with-out it. Given that countercontrol is buta subclass of negative reinforcement,might it be preferable to discard theterm? Consideration of how Skinnerapplied countercontrol in his systemtempers such a suggestion. Indeed,Skinner gave countercontrol a leadingrole in his conceptual analysis of socialcontrol and freedom and in his ap-proach to cultural design.Human FreedomWhen people speak of being free,

they commonly rely on feelings of be-

ing free. But the feeling of freedom isnot a reliable indicator (Skinner, 1971).When we describe to ourselves andothers that we are free, the environ-mental conditions surrounding our be-havior, along with our environmentalhistory, control our self-descriptions aswell as the behavior referred to as free.The main requirement for feeling freeis that controlling attempts or variablesare not identified. Persons whose be-havior is under the control of positivereinforcement often say that they feelfree because the controlling variablescan be inconspicuous. Skinner (1971)used the case of state lotteries to ex-tract cryptotaxes as particularly egre-gious examples of controlling condi-tions that lead people to "freely" partwith their money. The reciprocal offreedom is the control of human be-havior (Skinner, 1972, p. 8) and behav-ior is always controlled. People valueso-called freedom because it pertainsto a particular type of control, namelythose methods that are not aversive andtherefore do not occasion countercon-trol.

Skinner (1971) warns us that to usethe absence of countercontrolling be-havior as a marker of freedom is ulti-mately dangerous and self-defeating.Uncritical acceptance of our own andothers' claims of freedom can contrib-ute to controlling practices that resultin deferred aversive consequences tothe controllee. To its promoters, free-dom appears to be especially threat-ened when "behavior generated bypositive reinforcement has deferredaversive consequences" (Skinner,1971, p. 33), when the control is inten-tional, and when the controllee's lossesare ultimately translated into gains tocontrollers.

According to Skinner (1971), cham-pions of freedom have taken the posi-tion that all control is wrong andshould be either eliminated or counter-controlled. However, this overlookscontrol that does not have readily de-tectable aversive consequences. Be-havior analysis suggests that the routeto what people describe as freedom is

196 DENNIS J. DELPRATO

not to abolish control or free themfrom it but rather "to analyze andchange the kinds of control to whichthey are exposed" (Skinner, 1971, p.43). In particular, humans need (a) toeliminate aversive control (often apractical impossibility), (b) to identifypositive reinforcement and other incon-spicuous forms of control that have de-ferred aversive consequences, and (c)to substitute positive reinforcementcontingencies without such conse-quences. This would eliminate the con-ditions that occasion countercontrol.Unfortunately, although completelynonaversive control possibly representsthe ideal behavior-analytic form ofcontrol (Sidman, 1989; Skinner, 1948,1968, 1974), it is unlikely that all con-ditions that promote countercontrol canbe eliminated from cultures. For ex-ample, even Skinner's utopia, WaldenTwo, included a planned vehicle forprotest (Skinner, 1948). Some impli-cations of countercontrol for culturaldesign are taken up next.

Design of CulturesSkinner's (1948, 1971, 1972, 1978)

approach to the social environment, orculture, followed from his overallframework. A culture is made up ofcontingencies that bear on the behaviorof its members. Behavior analysis re-veals that institutions of social controlsuch as religion, government, and ed-ucation rely heavily on aversive con-trol, which accounts for many of theunfavorable countercontrolling reac-tions individuals and groups have hadto aspects of their culture.

First on the list of behavior-analyticrecommendations for the design of theideal culture is the elimination of aver-sive and coercive control. This wouldreduce the frequency of unanticipatedand harmful by-products of control re-sulting from countercontrolling behav-ior (Sidman, 1989). But control, ofcourse, cannot be eliminated. The typeof control recommended is publiclyvisible positive reinforcement contin-gencies without deferred aversive con-

sequences. Disguised control should beavoided. Cultural designers need to ar-range avenues of effective countercon-trol. Effective countercontrol will beavailable if control is conspicuous andif there is a balance between controland countercontrol. For equal distri-bution of control and countercontrol,individuals who are the sources of con-trol must be identified and their behav-ior must be available to controllees.Delegation of control should be avoid-ed, because this renders controllers'behavior inaccessible to controllees(Skinner, 1971).Advances in the science of behavior

increase the importance of countercon-trol (Krapfl & Vargas, 1977). The morewe know about behavior, the more eas-ily it can be controlled. Avenues ofcountercontrol must accompany newtechniques of control to prevent con-trollers from working to the detrimentof controllees. Critics of Skinner's(1972) cultural design (e.g., Bethle-hem, 1987; Chomsky, 1972; Koestler,1968) seem to have overlooked hisproposal that explicit countercontrolmeasures be part of the control proce-dures that follow from the science ofbehavior. Perhaps this point alone jus-tifies retaining, and even emphasizing,countercontrol in behavior analysis."Grand manipulators" (see Black,1973) are not likely to propose insti-tutionalization of potent techniques formonitoring and overriding their prac-tices.

In sum, Skinner recommended a bal-ance of control and countercontrol inthe design of an effective culture; how-ever, he did not place all of the burdenof cultural design on such balancing.Skinner (1973) stressed that a systemof control and countercontrol, althoughpossibly yielding the greatest good tothe greatest number, "will not neces-sarily have survival value, and thosewho are concerned for the future of aculture must go beyond the counter-controlling pattern" with "practiceswhich bring people under the controlof a more remote future" (p. 265).

COUNTERCONTROL 197

RELATED RESEARCH

Behavioral service providers havemany opportunities to confront coun-tercontrolling behavior. Consumers fre-quently complain, drop out, fail to fol-low recommendations, and engage inother defensive and withdrawal behav-iors. This section selectively samples afew applications of countercontrol inapplied behavior analysis to illustratethe importance of the concept to cur-rent work.

Kazdin (1977) and Wolf (1978) in-troduced social validity assessments asa means to address consumers' accep-tance of programs. Typically, programmanagers collect acceptability or valid-ity data by asking consumers to com-plete a questionnaire. Schwartz andBaer (1991) characterize social validityassessment as a defensive techniquewhereby interventionists can identifyand address discontent before consum-ers begin more extreme forms of coun-tercontrol such as ignoring programprocedures, withdrawing completely,or recommending to others that theyavoid the program.

If social validity assessments iden-tify incipient countercontrolling behav-ior, what can behavior analysts do topreempt it, and how can they proac-tively decrease the likelihood of coun-tercontrol in the first place? Fawcett(1991) proposed that community re-searchers form collaborative relation-ships with research participants. Miller(1991) strongly endorsed Fawcett'sproposal in a thoughtful and succinctcommentary devoted to countercontrolin applied behavior analysis. Further-more, Redmon (1992) suggested thatparticipative management systemsmight reduce countercontrol in orga-nizations.

Applied behavior analysts have re-ported patterns of responding thatmight be effectively classified as in-stances of countercontrol. Boren andColman (1970, Experiment 2) exam-ined several point-economy contingen-cy systems in the management of apsychiatric ward for soldiers with his-

tories of serious problem behaviors(e.g., convictions for minor crimes, ab-sences without leave). One responsetargeted was attendance at a morningunit meeting. Patients who attended themeeting received 20 points, exchange-able for a variety of privileges, but at-tendance was not 100%. It occasion-ally was as low as 70%, and becausesome absentees were observed sleep-ing, the authors established a contin-gency in which a 10-point fine was lev-ied on each patient who stayed in bedinstead of attending the meeting. Thegroup's response to the fine conditionwas dramatic and had the appearanceof countercontrolling behavior. Partic-ipants dramatically decreased atten-dance, which ranged from 0% to 60%over 5 days of the fine condition. Fur-thermore, other side effects occurred.For example, the men's whispered useof the word "rebellion" was heard,some ordered others to get back intobed, four went absent without leave,and others committed rule infractionssuch as fighting. Upon withdrawal ofthe fine contingency, attendance at themeeting increased to levels close tothose of the initial phase.A few behavior analysts have begun

to explore countercontrol in organiza-tions. Work settings seem especiallyconducive to various aversive controltechniques and historically have givenrise to a variety of apparently counter-controlling behavior such as strikes,slowdowns, violence, sabotage, mali-cious destruction, and unsanitary be-havior. Ludwig and his collaborators(Ludwig & Geller, 1991, 1997, 1999;Ludwig, Geller, & Clarke, in press)conducted a series of controlled studieson the safe driving behavior of profes-sional pizza deliverers. These research-ers applied ecological or behavioralsystems guidelines (e.g., Willems,1974), which involved measurement ofother responses in addition to targetedresponses. In some instances, they re-ported finding countercontrol with re-sponses targeted by interventions. Inother cases, countercontrol seemed tooccur in the form of collateral respons-

198 DENNIS J. DELPRATO

es. Ludwig and Geller (1997) targetedcomplete stopping at intersections withan intervention that consisted of goalsetting and group feedback. An analy-sis of group data revealed that the in-tervention reliably increased completeintersection stops in groups of driverswhose goals were set either participa-tively or by assignment. However, thetwo groups responded differently to theintervention when a collateral safedriving response, turn-signal use, wasexamined. The results for the nontar-geted response support suggestions thatcountercontrol would be reduced bycollaboration (Fawcett, 1991; Miller,1991; Redmon, 1992). The group whoparticipated in setting goals for inter-section stops exhibited response induc-tion with an intervention-related in-crease in turn-signal use in contrast tothe assigned goals group, who showedno increase in the nontargeted safedriving response.The generality of Ludwig and Gel-

ler's (1997) finding was supported bya study in which the same researcherstargeted turn-signal use and also mea-sured safety-belt use. Ludwig and Gel-ler (1999) used a multiple-baseline de-sign across two pizza stores and pre-sented group data. The intervention de-signed to increase turn-signal useinvolved a simple corporate policystatement on the use of turn signals atevery intersection that was enclosedwith two consecutive biweekly pay-checks. The policy statement was ac-companied by small increases in turn-signal use with each presentation. Non-targeted safety-belt use decreased sub-stantially concomitant with the firstpresentation of the policy statement atboth stores. The authors suggest thatthe decrease in the use of safety devic-es might represent a type of counter-controlling behavior in response to theemployer's attempts at control.

Given that aversive stimulation isconditional on individual history andcurrent stimulating conditions, it wouldnot be surprising to find that counter-control varies from individual to indi-vidual under the same set of condi-

tions. This reasoning led Ludwig andGeller (1991) to examine individualdata early in their research when theytargeted safety-belt use. The multiple-component intervention included inter-active group discussion, consensusbuilding, and in-store prompts. It wasvariously effective across subgroupsdiffering in driving history; however, 1driver stood out from the rest. Duringbaseline, this individual wore his safetybelt on 100% of the measurement oc-casions. With the onset of intervention,his safety-belt use quickly droppedclose to 0%., where it remained.

In another study, Ludwig et al. (inpress) targeted turn-signal use and suc-cessively introduced two interventionsacross two groups of drivers from dif-ferent stores in a multiple-baseline de-sign. At the group level, both interven-tions were effective for each of thegroups. The first intervention (groupgoal setting and group feedback) in-creased percentage of turn-signal useover baseline, and the second interven-tion (publicly displayed individualfeedback added to the components ofthe first intervention) further enhancedthe treatment effect. Similar resultswere obtained with group data for non-targeted safe driving behavior in theform of complete intersection stopping.Yet, 1 driver did not show increases ineither the targeted turn-signal use orthe nontargeted complete intersectionstopping. In fact, both measureschanged in directions opposite to thoseof his group as a whole. Another driverin the same study demonstrated de-creases in the nontargeted responseduring both interventions.Mawhinney and Fellows-Kubert

(1999) examined individual data froma group of telemarketers who workedunder a performance quota of 36 com-pleted calls per day. They found that 2workers' call rates were consistentlylower than the others' rates and failedto meet the quota, even though bothworkers had previously performed atthe level of the quota. During an inter-vention phase involving a positive re-inforcement contingency for group per-

COUNTERCONTROL 199

formance, the same 2 workers oftenmet the quota but continued to producecall rates far lower than those of theirpeers, whose output increased substan-tially. The authors suggest that thequota system functioned as an aversivecondition for the 2 workers, who re-sponded with countercontrolling be-havior even in the presence of a posi-tive reinforcement contingency. Theidentification of countercontrolling be-havior in individual records (Ludwig &Geller, 1991; Ludwig et al., in press;Mawhinney & Fellows-Kubert, 1999)illustrates that group-data analysis canfail to reveal important unplanned out-comes of interventions.

SUMMARY ANDCONCLUSIONS

In summary, conceptualization ofcountercontrol as a functional class ofbehavior follows from the facts that (a)all behavior is controlled and (b) in ad-dition to being controlled, humans con-trol. Countercontrol is the natural resultof human-produced aversive condi-tions and the process of negative rein-forcement, which itself is an outcomeof contingencies of survival (e.g.,Skinner, 1971).

Countercontrol is the counterpart tobehavior control (i.e., behaver control).Conventionally, behavior analysis de-scriptively and experimentally analyz-es environmental control of behavior.Countercontrol provides one route toanalyzing how behavers control the en-vironment. Increased attention to coun-tercontrol by behavior analysts andlaypersons might increase the likeli-hood that individuals will identify theirinvolvement in exposing others tofunctionally aversive stimuli, with allthis implies regarding behavior. Thosewho consider countercontrol carefullymight be less likely to contribute toconditions that produce countercon-trolling responses such as withdrawal,feigned acceptance, and opposition.Furthermore, in cases involving non-compliance, malicious destruction, andopposition, countercontrol can help to

direct informal and formal analytic ef-forts to the possibility of subtle and in-dividual-specific sources of sociallymediated aversive control. The princi-ples underlying behavioral countercon-trol recommend that when interactingwith others under any conditions weregularly ask, "What might be func-tionally aversive for this individual andwhat might he or she do about it?"

Whether or not the version of coun-tercontrol presented here withstandsthe scrutiny of future behavior ana-lysts, the events of countercontrol willremain with us. Both individually andcollectively, humans are likely to con-tinue imposing on others coercive be-havior-environment contingencies thatoccasion defensive responses. Scientif-ic understanding of such circumstancesmight effectively proceed from thestandpoint of social behavior analysis.For the time being, at least, counter-control continues to show promise as auseful concept in the science of socialbehavior.

REFERENCES

Balsam, P D., & Bondy, A. S. (1978). The lo-cust of control and other plagues. BehaviorTherapy, 9, 963-964.

Baum, W. M. (1994). Understanding behavior-ism: Science, behavior, and culture. NewYork: HarperCollins.

Bethlehem, D. (1987). Scolding the carpenter.In S. Modgil & C. Modgil (Eds.), B. F. Skin-ner: Consensus and controversy (pp. 89-97).New York: Falmer Press.

Bijou, S. W, & Baer, D. M. (1961). Child de-velopment: Vol. 1. A systematic and empirlcaltheory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bijou, S. W., & Baer, D. M. (1978). Behavioranalysis of child development. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Black, M. (1973). Some aversive responses toa would-be reinforcer. In H. Wheeler (Ed.),Beyond the punitive society (pp. 125-134).San Francisco: Freeman.

Boren, J. J., & Colman, A. D. (1970). Someexperiments on reinforcement principles with-in a psychiatric ward for delinquent soldiers.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 3, 29-37.

Chomsky, N. (1972). Psychology and ideology.Cognition, 1, 11-46.

Delprato, D. J. (1986). Response patterns. In H.W. Reese & L. J. Parrott (Eds.), Behavior sci-ence: Philosophical, methodological, and em-

200 DENNIS J. DELPRATO

pirical advances (pp. 61-113). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Fawcett, S. B. (1991). Some values guidingcommunity research and action. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 24, 621-636.

Henton, W. W., & Iversen, I. H. (1978). Clas-sical conditioning and operant conditioning:A response pattern analysis. New York:Springer-Verlag.

Kazdin, A. E. (1977). Assessing the clinical orapplied importance of behavior changethrough social validation. Behavior Modifica-tion, 1, 427-452.

Koestler, A. (1968). The ghost in the machine.New York: Macmillan.

Krapfl, J. E., & Vargas, E. A. (1977). Implica-tions for the future: Concluding remarks. In J.E. Krapfl & E. A. Vargas (Eds.), Behaviorismand ethics (pp. 319-327). Kalamazoo, MI:Behaviordelia.

Ludwig, T. D., & Geller, E. S. (1991). Improv-ing the driving practices of pizza deliverers:Response generalization and moderating ef-fects of driving history. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 24, 31-44.

Ludwig, T. D., & Geller, E. S. (1997). Assignedversus participative goal setting and responsegeneralization: Managing injury controlamong professional pizza deliverers. Journalof Applied Psychology, 82, 253-261.

Ludwig, T D., & Geller, E. S. (1999). Behav-ioral impact of a corporate driving policy: Un-desirable side-effects reflect countercontrol.Journal of Organizational Behavior Manage-ment, 19, 25-34.

Ludwig, T D., Geller, E. S., & Clarke, S. W. (inpress). Using publicly-displayed feedback toincrease turn-signal use: Examining spread ofeffect and individual response patterns. Jour-nal of Organizational Behavior Management.

Mawhinney, T. C., & Fellows-Kubert, C.(1999). Positive contingencies versus quotas:Telemarketers exert countercontrol. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior Management, 19,35-55.

Michael, J. (1982). Distinguishing between dis-criminative and motivational functions ofstimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysisof Behavior, 37, 149-155.

Michael, J. (1993). Establishing operations. TheBehavior Analyst, 16, 191-206.

Miller, L. K. (1991). Avoiding the countercon-trol of applied behavior analysis. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 24, 645-647.

Platt, J. R. (1973). The Skinnerian revolution.In H. Wheeler (Ed.), Beyond the punitive so-ciety (pp. 22-56). San Francisco: Freeman.

Redmon, W. K. (1992). Opportunities for ap-plied behavior analysis in the total quality

movement. Journal ofApplied Behavior Anal-ysis, 25, 545-550.

Rogers-Warren, A., & Warren, S. F (Eds.).(1977). Ecological perspectives in behavioranalysis. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Schroeder, S. R. (Ed.). (1990). Ecobehavioralanalysis and developmental disabilities: Thetwenty-first century. New York: Springer-Ver-lag.

Schwartz, I. S., & Baer, D. M. (1991). Socialvalidity assessments: Is current practice stateof the art? Journal ofApplied Behavior Anal-ysis, 24, 189-204.

Sidman, M. (1989). Coercion and its fallout.Boston: Authors Cooperative.

Skinner, B. F (1947). Experimental psychology.In W. Dennis (Ed.), Current trends in psy-chology (pp. 16-49). Pittsburgh, PA: Univer-sity of Pittsburgh Press.

Skinner, B. F (1948). Walden two. New York:Macmillan.

Skinner, B. F (1953). Science and human be-havior. New York: The Free Press.

Skinner, B. F (1968). The technology of teach-ing. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Skinner, B. F (1971). Beyondfreedom and dig-nity. New York: Knopf.

Skinner, B. F (1972). Cumulative record (3rded.). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Skinner, B. F (1973). Answers for my critics.In H. Wheeler (Ed.), Beyond the punitive so-ciety (pp. 256-266). San Francisco: Freeman.

Skinner, B. F (1974). About behaviorism. NewYork: Knopf.

Skinner, B. F (1978). Reflections on behavior-ism and society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-tice Hall.

Skinner, B. F (1981). Selection by consequenc-es. Science, 213, 501-504.

Voeltz, L. M., & Evans, I. M. (1982). The as-sessment of behavioral interrelationships inchild behavior therapy. Behavioral Assess-ment, 4, 131-165.

Wahler, R. G., & Fox, J. J. (1981). Settingevents in applied behavior analysis: Toward aconceptual and methodological expansion.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14,327-338.

Wahler, R. G., & Hann, D. M. (1987). An in-terbehavioral approach to clinical child psy-chology: Toward an understanding of troubledfamilies. In D. H. Ruben & D. J. Delprato(Eds.), New ideas in psychology (pp. 53-78).Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Willems, E. P. (1974). Behavioral technologyand behavioral ecology. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 7, 151-165.

Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The casefor subjective measurement or how appliedbehavior analysis is finding its heart. Journalof Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203-214.