Zilio (2019) On The Function of Science

Behavior and Social Issues
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-019-00006-x
On the Function of Science: an Overview of 30 Years

of Publications on Metacontingency
Diego Zilio 1
# Association for Behavior Analysis International 2019
Abstract
How effective has the concept of metacontingency been in providing explanations about
cultural practices during the 30 years (1986–2016) since Glenn’s first publication on the
subject? One of the main characteristics of behavior analysis epistemology is in the role
attributed to science itself: to promote effective action. Effectiveness, in this case, is
evaluated by the increase in probability of contacting reinforcing consequences in our
interactions with the world (bio-, psycho- or social-) as a function of the knowledge
produced by scientific practices. In other words, scientific effectiveness is related to the use
of science in solving human problems. Guided by this premise, the aim of this article is to
discuss the effectiveness of the metacontingency in explaining social processes (cultural
practices) and in promoting effective action (i.e., solving human problems). An analysis of
148 articles on the metacontingency published between January 1986 and April 2017 in
16 peer-reviewed journals and 3 databases was conducted. Articles were categorized into
four domains - theoretical, interpretative, experimental, and applied. The frequency with
which the articles were distributed among domains, journals, and research centers is
presented; as well as considerations regarding conceptual, experimental, and applied
issues found in the reviewed literature. The results suggest that the very definition of the
metacontingency is still an open question, that the experimental data do not necessarily
support the major conceptual claim related to the metacontingency (i.e., that we are
dealing with a new selective process that requires a proper unit of analysis), and that no
applied work in which the metacontingency was necessary has been conducted to date.
These results question the utility of metacontingency as well as the necessity of a new unit
of analysis (beyond the contingency) to study cultural practices.
Keywords Behavior analysis . Contingency . Cultural practices . Culture . Effective action .

Metacontingency . Utility
* Diego Zilio
dzilioufes@gmail.com
1
Department of Social and Developmental Psychology (DPSD), Federal University of Espírito
Santo (UFES), Fernando Ferrari Ave, 514. Goiabeiras, Vitória, ES 29075-910, Brazil
It has been more than 30 years since the publication of Glenn’s (1986)
BMetacontingencies in Walden Two^. Now a classic, this paper can be considered a
groundbreaking step from which an entire field of research on social behavior, cultural
practices, and culture in general grew within behavior analysis. This alone assures the
importance of Glenn’s proposal to a field not commonly associated with social or
cultural research. Even though its main proponent, B. F. Skinner, had written exten-
sively about the subject (e.g., Skinner, 1953/1965, 1961, 1971, 1986, 1987), it is
evident that Glenn’s work was paramount to draw attention to an area otherwise
generally overlooked by behavior analysis.
According to the metacontingency literature, another unit of analysis beyond the
contingency is necessary to study the selection of cultural practices (cf., Andery,
Micheletto, & Sério, 2005; Andery & Sério, 2005; Glenn, 1988, 2003, 2004; Glenn
& Malott, 2004a; Houmanfar & Rodrigues, 2006; Houmanfar, Rodrigues, & Ward,
2010; Sandaker, 2010; Todorov & Moreira, 2004). As Glenn (2003) states, Badditional
processes are needed to account for the emergence and evolution of cultural-level units
that cannot be accounted for entirely by natural selection and/or the operant selection of
behavioral repertoires during ontogeny^ (p. 240). Two key themes appear in this
discussion: reductionism and emergence. It is said that even though cultural practices
are emergent from the behavior of individuals, the metacontingency is not reducible to
the contingency (see also Andery et al., 2005; Andery & Sério, 2005; Glenn, 1988,
2003, 2004; Glenn & Malott, 2004a; Houmanfar & Rodrigues, 2006; Houmanfar et al.,
2010; Sandaker, 2010; Todorov & Moreira, 2004). Delgado (2012) summarizes:
…the notion of emergence has been used to describe interrelations of events

across levels of analysis. Thus, a culture is said to emerge from the interrelated
behavior of individuals just as behavior may be considered to emerge from
physiological activity. Even though a new unit of analysis or subject matter
emerges from processes at other levels of analysis, events at more molar levels
are not reducible to events at more molecular levels…Specifically, cultural events
cannot be reduced to psychological events…Each level constitutes an indepen-
dent scientific domain wherein the conceptual categories and methods used to
describe a subject matter cannot be used to describe units pertaining to a different
level. (p. 19)
However, the connection between philosophical assumptions regarding reductionism

and emergence and the metacontingency is weak at best. We can assume cultural
practices are emergent from, and irreducible to, the behavior of individuals, and still
make the case for a contingency analysis of cultural practices. Saying that the
metacontingency is not reducible to the contingency is not the same as saying that
cultural practices are not reducible to individual behaviors. The latter is an obvious
statement, as cultural practices, by definition, involve the behaviors of one or more
individuals under the control of social contingencies, that is, contingencies maintained
by members of the group. The first, on the other hand, is not so obvious. Here the focus
is not on the reduction of one phenomenon (cultural practices) to another (individual
behaviors); instead, the focus is on the reduction of one unit of analysis
(metacontingency) to another unit of analysis (contingency). This can be viewed as
an explanatory problem. Namely, is it possible to explain the selection of cultural
practices with only the contingency as the unit of analysis? There is not a problem in
providing an affirmative answer to this question and, simultaneously, assuming that
cultural practices are emergent and irreducible phenomena.
Since the proposal of metacontingency was not originally based on empirical
data (this will be discussed later), the discourse of reduction/emergence may have
played a relevant role in justifying its adoption as the unit for studying cultural
practices. Nonetheless, the shift from reducing phenomena to reducing explanations
is critical because now the problem is less about the emergence or reduction of
cultural practices and more about the usefulness or effectiveness of the
metacontingency as an explanatory unit of analysis. In this context, to compare
the metacontingency to the contingency as possible units of cultural analysis
becomes a secondary endeavor. The more important consideration is to evaluate
the metacontingency on its own merits. One way of doing this is to analyze the
literature on the metacontingency that has been published to date. How effective has
the concept of the metacontingency been in providing explanations of cultural
practices since Glenn’s first publication on the subject in 1986?
The Criterion of Effective Action
Discussions about effectiveness of a concept make sense only in a broader context

of philosophical presumptions that can provide a frame of reference to guide the
analysis. To say that the concept of Bstrings^ in physics is informative and useful
may not mean the same as to say that the concept of Boperant^ in behavior
analysis is informative and useful. The same goes for the metacontingency. Hence,
the first step to evaluate its effectiveness is to provide a clear definition of what
Beffectiveness^ mean.
For Skinner (1953/1965), prediction and control are the main goals of behavior
analysis. By knowing the variables controlling behavior we can, to some extent, predict
its occurrence and, by manipulating those variables, we can control it. Skinner (1959)
said, Bprediction and control of behavior. .. is the ultimate test of an effective science^
(p. 224). One way to understand the relation between prediction and control and
effectiveness is to view it in the context of Bacon’s influence on Skinner (Buzzo &
Carvalho Neto, 2003; Smith, 1992). In his autobiography Skinner (1979) described
Baconian principles that guided his life as a scientist: Bto say, as Bacon said, that
knowledge is power is simply to say that it is successful action. It is what we do to the
world^ (p. 406); and Ba third Baconian theme completes the story. The New Atlantis
was the first Utopia I read. A better world was possible, but it would not come about by
accident. It must be planned and built, and with the help of science^ (p. 412). Scientific
knowledge would help us to create a Bbetter world^ by providing guidance to
Bsuccessful action^. Again, according to Skinner (1969), Bthe point of science. .. is
to analyze the contingencies of reinforcement found in nature and to formulate rules or
laws which make it unnecessary to be exposed to them in order to behave
appropriately^ (p. 166).
In a general sense, to act successfully or to behave appropriately means to produce
reinforcing consequences or to avoid aversive consequences in our interactions with the
world. For Skinner, science can help us accomplish that. Pharmacology can diminish
the probably of having a certain disease (aversive situation) by developing appropriate

drugs. Behavioral therapies can increase the probability of contacting reinforcing
consequences through its therapeutic methods. In sum, the effectiveness criterion is
about the use of science to solve human problems, which is another way of saying to
help us to behave Beffectively^.
One important point about the effectiveness criterion is that Skinner applied it
specifically to scientific concepts. In his words:
The ultimate criterion for the goodness of a concept is not whether two people are
brought into agreement but whether the scientist who uses the concept can
operate successfully upon his material – all by himself if need be. What matters
to Robinson Crusoe is not whether he is agreeing with himself but whether he is
getting anywhere with his control over nature. (Skinner, 1945, p. 293)
Therefore, scientific concepts should be evaluated considering their role in promoting

effective action. That is the criterion that was adopted in this review to evaluate the
effectiveness of the concept of the metacontingency. Specifically, the concept of the
metacontingency was evaluated by its role in explaining social processes (cultural
practices) and promoting effective action (i.e., solving human problems), in accordance
with Todorov (2006) who states: Bwhat we should be doing is to apply new concepts to
practical problems and show that they can be useful to those interested in the analysis
and modification of cultural practices^ (p. 93). The general goal of this paper is to
evaluate the effectiveness of the metacontingency as a conceptual tool in explaining
and promoting effective action in the social or cultural domains.
Method
Bibliography Selection
A bibliography selection was conducted across 16 journals known for publishing

articles on behavior analysis in English, Portuguese, and Spanish; and three biblio-
graphical databases (see Table 1).
Next, all articles published between January 1986 (if a journal was launched after
January 1986, the selection started with the date of its first issue) and April 2017 that
contained the keyword Bmetacontingency^ (or variants, such as Bmetacontingencies^,
Bmetacontingência^, Bmetacontingências^) in titles, abstracts, keywords, references, or
in the text itself were selected. Articles for which the term Bmetacontingency^ appeared
but the metacontingency was not the main subject of the article, nor was it part of the
conceptual framework supporting the article, and book reviews were excluded. For
instance, articles in which the term Bmetacontingency^ appeared in the title of an article
on the reference list, but metacontingency was not mentioned in the text itself, were
eliminated. Book reviews were eliminated because the books themselves would not be
consulted; the focus instead was on peer-reviewed articles. This process resulted in 148
articles that remained for further analysis. These 148 papers were then subjected to a
quantitative and qualitative analysis. The 148 papers selected for analysis are marked
with asterisks (*) in the Reference section.
Table 1 Journals and databases reviewed
Journal Abbreviation Period
1 Acta Comportamentalia AC 1993–2016

2 Behavior Analysis and Social Action BA&SA 1986–1989
3 Behaviorism / Behavior and Philosophy B/B&P 1986–2015
4 Behavior and Social Issues BSI 1991–2017
5 European Journal of Behavior Analysis EJOBA 2000–2017
6 Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis JABA 1986–2017
7 Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior JEAB 1986–2017
8 Journal of Organizational Behavior Management JOBM 1986–2017
9 Perspectivas em Análise do Comportamento PAC 2010–2017
(Perspectives in Behavior Analysis)
10 Revista Brasileira de Análise do Comportamento ReBAC 2005–2016
(Brazilian Journal of Behavior Analysis)
11 Revista Brasileira de Terapia Comportamental e Cognitiva RBTCC 1999–2016
(Brazilian Journal of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy)
12 Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología (The Latin American RLP 1986–2016
Journal of Psychology)
13 Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta RMAC 1986–2016
(Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis)
14 The Behavior Analyst TBA 1986–2017
15 The Behavior Analyst Today TBAT 2000–2017
16 The Psychological Record TPR 1989–2017
17 Databases: ScientifiEletronic Library Online / Scielo/PEPSIC/PMC 1986–2017
Periódicos Eletrônicos em Psicologia / PubMed Central
Classification by Thematic Categories
First, the selected papers were distributed into four thematic categories. The first three
categories delineated throughout the second round of reading have the starting point in
the conventional divisions of behavior analysis research as theoretical, applied, and
experimental (Marr, 2013; Zilio, 2019). The fourth category added interpretative
research as was defined by Donahoe (2004).
Theoretical Articles focused on conceptual/philosophical issues regarding the

metacontingency were counted as theoretical. Theoretical works were further sorted
into four subcategories due to the plural nature of Btheoretical^ work (Kitchener, 1996;
Zilio, 2019).
1. Conceptual Articles considered conceptual were those for which the main focus was
to discuss the very definition of the Bmetacontingency^ and its related concepts, those
that reviewed those definitions, and those that discussed conceptual implications of the
metacontingency (like the problems of reductionism and emergence).
2. Theoretical Ramifications Articles that focused on theoretical/philosophical issues

regarding social or cultural processes and used the metacontingency as the primary
concept in their analytic framework were considered in this subcategory. These differed
from papers categorized as Binterpretive^ in that they defend the usefulness of the
metacontingency in analyzing organizational processes without providing concrete
examples. As described here, this is a theoretical endeavor. Conversely, interpretation
is always about some real phenomenon (for instance, interpretation of piracy in
Somalia; see Ward, 2009).
3. Critical Articles whose contents were primarily critical about the metacontingency
were counted in this subcategory.
3. Reviews This subcategory was used for articles focused on reviews about data
published on metacontingency research.
Interpretative For Skinner (1988), to interpret is to provide a sense of understanding

based upon the knowledge produced in the experimental domain about a phenomenon
that is not passible (at least momentarily) through experimentation (cf., Donahoe, 2004;
Palmer, 2011). Skinner (1988) defines interpretation Bas the use of scientific terms and
principles in talking about facts about which too little is known to make prediction and
control possible^ (p. 207). Articles categorized as interpretive, then, were those in which
the authors used the metacontingency as a tool to interpret real social or cultural processes.
Experimental Articles that described experimental (or Bbasic^) research done within
the standards of the experimental analysis of behavior (Skinner, 1966) were counted
here.
Applied Articles that described applied research done within the standards of applied
behavior analysis (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968), recognizing, as argued by Critchfield
and Reed (2017), the fuzziness of the concept were included here. The defining feature
for articles categorized as applied was the Binterest society shows in the problem being
studied^ (Baer et al., p. 92).
Organization and Analysis
In the following sections the quantitative results related to the distribution of the
papers into thematic categories, journals, and authors and their respective affilia-
tions are presented. A discussion of particular points relevant to the question of
the utility of the metacontingency, such as the very definition of metacontingency
and its related concepts; the experimental data and theoretical assumptions regard-
ing the selection of cultural practices; the use of metacontingency in applied
situations; and the criticisms directed to Glenn’s proposal are also included to
complement the quantitative analysis.
It is important to note that the focus of this analysis is not to be a systematic review
or meta-analysis in its method and organization of the data (Littell, Corcoran, & Pillai,
2008). The following results are best viewed as an informed conceptual analysis on the
metacontingency based on the 148 papers reviewed. As will become clear, there is a
quantitative aspect to it; however, the main characteristic of the investigation is in its
conceptual (Bqualitative^) content.
Distribution Among Thematic Categories
Table 2 shows the distribution of articles among each category.

The distribution of the 148 metacontingency articles among the categories from
January 1986 to April 2017 is depicted in Fig. 1.
The majority of articles were categorized as theoretical (56%), followed by those
categorized as interpretative (20%), experimental (18%), and applied (6%). Both
theoretical and interpretive categories included articles that do not involve direct
manipulation or intervention on social or cultural contexts: 76% of the articles reviewed
fell into those categories.
The majority of theoretical articles were subcategorized as conceptual (50%),
followed by theoretical ramifications (30.5%), critical (13.4%), and reviews (5.1%).
A variety of topics are included in the articles categorized as theoretical ramifications,
such as education (Lamal, 2001), health systems (Cornelius Dams, 1997), the ethics of
death and dying (Fraley, 1998), the relation to social sciences (Sandaker, 2006),
psychotherapy (Vandenberghe, 2008), urban management (Páramo, 2010), leadership
(Mattaini & Aspholm, 2016). The most frequent topic noted across these articles
pertained to the use of the metacontingency in organizations (Biglan, 2009; Foxall,
2015; Goltz & Slade, 2016; Houmanfar, Rodrigues, & Smith, 2009; Houmanfar,
Alavosius, Morford, Herbst, & Reimer, 2015; Malott, 2016a; Mawhinney, 1992,
2001, 2009; Reimer & Houmanfar, 2017; Sandaker, 2009).
In the first 4 years (1986–1990) following Glenn’s (1986) first article on the
metacontingency and the first 2 years following her first attempt to refine the concept
(Glenn, 1988), four theoretical articles and one interpretative article were published.
The first interpretation of cultural processes using the metacontingency was also
published during this period - Todorov’s (1987) analysis of the Brazilian constitution
as a set of metacontingencies. No experimental or applied work was published during
this period.
Twenty-three articles were published in the subsequent decade (1991–2000) -
12 theoretical papers, seven interpretative papers, and four applied papers. No
experimental papers were published. The period from 2001 to 2010 showed an
increase in the number of publications regarding metacontingencies. These papers
followed the same trend, however. With a total of 56 articles, 44 were theoretical,
11 were interpretative, and only one was experimental. No applied papers were
published in this period. Vichi, Andery, and Glenn (2009) published the first peer-
reviewed experimental research on the metacontingency during this period. The
last period (2010–2017) showed a significant increase in publications of experi-
mental research. From a total of 70 articles, 27 were theoretical, 12 were inter-
pretative, 26 were experimental, and five were applied. Even though armchair
practices (theoretical and interpretative) were still dominant, one can argue that the
search for experimental data regarding the metacontingency truly began in this
period.
Table 2 Distribution of articles among categories
Categories Total Articles ordered by date of publication
Theoretical 82 Glenn (1986, 1988, 1989); Malagodi and Jackson (1989); Mawhinney (1992, 1993,
1995); Newman, Reinecke, and Kurtz (1996); Cornelius Dams (1997); Fraley
(1998); Monestès and Darcheville (2000); Holburn and Vietze (2000); Lamal (2001);
Mawhinney (2001); Andery and Sério (2003); Houmanfar et al. (2003); Glenn and
Malott (2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2004d, 2004e, 2004f, 2004g, 2004h); Hobbs (2004);
Sandaker (2004); Pennypacker (2004); Ulman (2004); Salzinger (2004); Mattaini
(2004); Hayes and Houmanfar (2004); Glenn (2004); Todorov and Moreira (2004);
Andery et al. (2005); Marr (2006); Sandaker (2006); Branch (2006); Malott and
Glenn (2006); Houmanfar and Rodrigues (2006); Todorov (2006); Hobbs (2006);
Mattaini (2006, 2007); Martone and Todorov (2007); Vandenberghe (2008); Todorov
(2009); Mattaini (2009); Sandraker (2009); Mawhinney (2009); Houmanfar et al.
(2009); Biglan (2009); Houmanfar et al. (2010); Glenn (2010); Todorov (2010);
Sandaker (2010); Páramo (2010); Andery (2011); Vichi and Tourinho (2012);
Tourinho (2012); Todorov (2012); Tourinho and Vichi (2012); Leite and De Souza
(2012); Velasco, Benvenuti, and Tomanari (2012); Delgado (2012); Carrara et al.
(2013); Tourinho (2013); Todorov (2013); Foxall (2015); Houmanfar et al. (2015);
Carrara and Zilio (2015); Glenn (2004/2015); Sampaio and Leite (2015); Sampaio,
Ottoni, and Benvenuti (2015); Martins and Leite (2016); Couto and Sandaker (2016);
Glenn et al. (2016); Krispin (2016); Malott (2016a); Goltz and Slade (2016);
Mattaini and Aspholm (2016); Biglan (2016); Reimer and Houmanfar (2017)
Interpretative 30 Todorov (1987); Rakos (1991); Lamal (1991); Lamal and Greenspoon (1992); Bohrer
and Ellis (1998); Mawhinney (1998); Lamal et al. (2000); Norton (2001);
Houmanfar and Johnson (2003); Valderrama, López-López, and Gómez (2003);
Todorov (2005); Ellis and Magee (2007); Rumph et al. (2007); Bortoloti and
D’Agostino (2007); Dagen and Alavosius (2008); Lé Sénéchal-Machado and
Todorov (2008); Naves and Vasconcelos (2008); Ward (2009); Gusmão, Martins,
and De Luna (2011); Houmanfar and Ward (2012); Forero, García, Silva, and
López-López (2012); Escobar (2012); Brown and Houmanfar (2014); Wilhite and
Houmanfar (2015); Araújo et al. (2015); Cabral and Todorov (2015); Brayko,
Houmanfar, and Ghezzi (2016); Nogueira and Sampaio (2016); Malott (2016b);
Neves (2017)
Experimental 27 Vichi et al. (2009); Smith et al. (2011); Soares et al. (2012); Ortu et al. (2012); Hunter
(2012); Costa et al. (2012); Franceschini et al. (2012); Tadaiesky and Tourinho
(2012); Neves, Woeltz, and Glenn (2012); Morford and Cihon (2013); Sampaio et al.
(2013); Pavanelli et al. (2014); Borba, Silva, et al. (2014); Borba, Tourinho, and
Glenn (2014); Baia, Azevedo, Segantini, and Macedo (2015); Vasconcelos and
Todorov (2015); Marques and Tourinho (2015); Angelo and Gioia (2015); Nogueira
and Vasconcelos (2015); Toledo and Benvenuti (2015); Baia and Vasconcelos
(2015); Baia, Azevedo, Segantini, Macedo, and Vasconcelos (2015); Soares et al.
(2015); Hosoya and Tourinho (2016); Vieira, Andery, and Pessoa (2016); Carvalho,
Couto, Gois, Sandaker, and Todorov (2016); Borba et al. (2017)
Applied 9 Clayton et al. (1997); Langeland et al. (1998); Mawhinney (1999); Jessup and Stahelski
(1999); Camden and Ludwig (2013); Palmer and Johnson (2013); Baker et al.
(2015); Robertson and Pelaez (2016); Goomas and Ludwig (2017)
Distribution Among Journals
Figure 2 shows the division of the 148 metacontingency articles across thematic
categories distributed among the consulted journals.
50
45
40
35
Number of Articles
30
25
20
15
10
0
1986-1990 1991-2000 2001-2010 2011-2017
Years
Theoretical Interpretative Experimental Applied

Fig. 1 Distribution of articles in each category from 1986 to 2017
The journals are listed in order by number of publications. There were no articles
regarding the metacontingency in the Brazilian Journal of Behavioral and Cognitive
Therapy (RBTCC), the Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis (RMAC), or the Journal of
the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (JEAB). This may be a reflection of those journals’
policies. It is particularly interesting that JEAB, the main venue for publishing experimental
research in behavior analysis, has not published a single paper on the metacontingency.
JEAB does, however, publish experimental research on social behavior, especially on
cooperation. Given that the experimental designs used to study cooperation are similar to
those used in metacontingency experiments (cf., Velasco, Benvenuti, Sampaio, &
Tomanari, 2017), one could argue that the later are nothing more than cooperation studies.
Another interesting aspect highlighted by these data is that no applied research on the
metacontingency was found in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA). JABA is
the most important vehicle for publishing research regarding the use of behavior analysis
to solve human problems, which can lead one question the role of metacontingency in
applied settings. One could argue that JABA does not publish applied work on social
settings (which one can see is wrong with a quick glance through the journal’s titles and
abstracts) or that there is a more appropriate journal for publishing applied work with
metacontingencies. However, Behavior and Social Issues (BSI), a plausible candidate for
being such a journal, has not published a single applied research paper that uses the
metacontingency as well. A total of nine articles on applied research and the
metacontingency were found (four between 1991 and 2000 and five between 2010 and
2017). All of the applied studies were found in the Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management (JOBM), which might suggest that the utility of the metacontingency is
restricted to interventions in organizational settings (this will be discussed later).
RBTCC
RMAC
JEAB
DATABASES
TPR
TBAT
JABA
EJOBA
Journals
B, B&P
BASA
PAC
AC
TBA
RLP
REBAC
JOBM
BSI
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Number of Articles
Total Applied Experimental Interpretative Theoretical

Fig. 2 Distribution of articles in each category among the consulted journals and databases
Seven journals had five or more publications on the metacontingency. Acta

Comportamentalia (AC) published five theoretical and four experimental research
papers, all in Portuguese. The Behavior Analyst (TBA) came next, with seven theoret-
ical and three interpretative articles, all in English. Although not a behavior-analytic
journal, due to a special edition on the metacontingency published in 2012, The Latin
American Journal of Psychology (RLP) came after with five theoretical, four interpre-
tative, and six experimental articles (two of the articles found in RLP were not in the
special edition). Eleven of the papers were in English and four were in Spanish. The
Brazilian Journal of Behavior Analysis (REBAC) was the next journal with the most
articles on metacontingencies, with six theoretical, five interpretative, and seven ex-
perimental articles, all in Portuguese. JOBM had the second most articles on the
metacontingency with eleven theoretical, one interpretative, and nine applied research
papers, all in English. Finally, with 39 theoretical, 13 interpretative and eight experi-
mental articles, all in English, BSI was the journal with the majority of publications
about the metacontingency, encompassing 40.5% of the 148 papers.
It is interesting to note that two of the journals with more frequent publications on
the metacontingency, AC and REBAC, had articles published only in Portuguese. This
suggests that research on the metacontingency might be a recurring practice at the
Brazilian behavior-analytic community. This assumption is corroborated by the distri-
bution of metacontingency publications according to author’s affiliations as shown in
Table 3 and discussed in the next section.
Principal Researchers and Centers Studying the Metacontingency
The articles listed in Table 3 were divided according to the category and the author(s)’
affiliation(s). Only affiliations that were associated with five or more articles were
included. If an article contained authors from more than one affiliation, each affiliation
was counted once. For instance, Vichi et al. (2009) counted for Pontifical Catholic
University of São Paulo (PUC-SP), Federal University of Vale do São Francisco
(UNIVASF), Federal University of Pará (UFPA), and the University of North Texas
(UNT).
Those affiliations with asterisks are located in Brazil and those affiliations with cross
signs are located in the United States of America. The affiliation with no marks is
located in Norway. UNT is the affiliation with the highest number of articles on the
metacontingency; the majority of which are theoretical. That is not surprising, given it
is the university at which Glenn held her faculty position, and Glenn is the main author
Table 3 Distribution of articles in each category by author affiliations
Affiliations Categories Total
Theoretical Interpretative Experimental Applied
University of North Texas † 16 3 6 25

University of Brasília (UnB) / Catholic 12 5 6 23
University of Goiás (UCG) / Higher
Education Institute of Brasilia (IESB) *
Univeristy of Nevada – Reno † 8 7 3 2 20
Federal University of Pará (UFPA) * 8 10 18
Pontifical Catholic University 4 1 4 9
of São Paulo (Puc-SP) *
Malott & Associated † 8 8
Oslo & Akershus University College (HiOA) 6 1 7
Federal University of Vale do São Francisco 4 1 2 7
(UNIVASF) *
University of Detroit – Mercy † 4 3 7
University of São Paulo (USP) * 3 2 5
Those affiliations with asterisks are located in Brazil and those affiliations with cross signs are located in the
United States of America. The affiliation with no marks is located in Norway
associated with the metacontingency. The location with the second greatest number of
articles on the metacontingency is the University of Brasília (UnB)/Catholic University
of Goiás (UCG)/Higher Education Institute of Brasilia (IESB) with 23 articles, the
majority of which are theoretical. These three universities are grouped together because
they were all associated with the same researcher, João Claudio Todorov, who devel-
oped activities at UCG and IESB only after having retired from UnB, where he is
professor emeritus and is still active in the graduate program in behavior analysis. The
University of Nevada–Reno (UNR) has the third highest number of papers with their
affiliation; with 20 publications, the majority of which are theoretical and interpretative,
and Ramona Houmanfar as the main contributing author. The university with the fourth
highest number of papers is UFPA. Among the 10 affiliations presented in Table 3,
UFPA is the one with more experimental articles. The main author at UFPA is
Emmanuel Zaguri Tourinho. After Glenn, Todorov and Tourinho are the authors with
the greatest number of articles about metacontingency (14 each).
From Table 3 it is possible to gather that Brazil has three strong centers of
research focused on the metacontingency: UnB (mainly associated with João
Claudio Todorov), UFPA (mainly associated with Emmanuel Tourinho), and
PUC-SP (mainly associated with Maria Amália Andery). In the United States, the
main centers are UNT (mainly associated with Sigrid Glenn) and UNR (mainly
associated with Ramona Houmanfar). One can argue that those are the main centers
as well as the primary researchers responsible for producing research on the
metacontingency and for fostering the development of new researchers at their
respective graduate programs.
In Search of a Common Definition
Many of the conceptual articles (Glenn, 1986, 1988, 2004, 2004/2015; Glenn & Malott,
2004d; Glenn et al., 2016; Houmanfar & Rodrigues, 2006; Martone & Todorov, 2007;
Sampaio & Leite, 2015) focus on the very definition of the metacontingency and its
adjacent concepts, like interlocking behavioral contingencies, aggregate products or
outcomes, macrocontingencies, and receiving systems, among others. As Sampaio and
Leite (2015) pointed out, the definition of the metacontingency underwent considerable
revisions since its first appearance on paper in 1986. We can see those changes in
Glenn’s articles throughout the years.
In 1986, Glenn defined the metacontingency as Bthe unit of analysis describing the
functional relations between a class of operants, each operant having its own immedi-
ate, unique consequence, and a long term consequence common to all the operants in
the metacontingency^ (p. 2). One of the main points made in this definition is that the
metacontingency is a Bunit of analysis^ related to the consequences Bcommon to all the
operants^ (Glenn, 1986, p. 2). There is not, however, an explicit commitment to a third
kind (or level) of selection irreducible to and emergent from operant selection.
This changed in 1988, when Glenn wrote:
If the selection of cultural practices is to be considered a 'third kind of selection'. .

. , we need to distinguish between the contingencies in the second kind of
selection (behavioral contingencies) and the contingencies in the third kind of
selection. (p. 167)
Glenn (1988) proceeded to redefine the metacontingency as Bthe unit of analysis

encompassing a cultural practice, in all its variations, and the aggregate outcome of
all the current variations^ (p. 168). In addition, she defined a cultural practice as Ba
subset of interlocking contingencies of reinforcement^ (Glenn, 1988, p. 167). Skinner
(1953/1965) used the concept of Binterlocking contingencies^ in his discussions of
social behavior, so it is not a new concept or exclusive to Glenn’s proposal. Nonethe-
less, Glenn (1988) further defined interlocking contingencies as those contingencies in
which Bthe behavior and behavioral products of each participant function as environ-
mental events with which the behavior of other individuals interacts^ (p. 167). Glenn
(1988) also proposed a new concept (not present in 1986) to describe the consequences
produced by cultural practices – the aggregate outcomes or products. Previously, Glenn
(1986) described a Blong term consequence common to all the operants in the
metacontingency^ (p. 2) but did not call it Baggregate outcome^ or Bproduct^. Another
change from Glenn (1986) to Glenn (1988) is the shift from the Bclass of operants^ to
Binterlocking contingencies^.
Glenn and Malott (2004c) made yet another relevant conceptual change. The authors
proposed a new element be included in the unit of cultural selection - the receiving
system:
In organizations, metacontingencies have three components: interlocking behav-

ioral contingencies, their aggregate product, and their receiving system. The
receiving system is the recipient of the aggregate product and thus functions as
the selecting environment of the interlocking behavioral contingencies…
Interlocking contingencies will cease recurring if there is no demand for their
products. (p. 100)
They argued that the aggregate outcome does not necessarily function as reinforcement
for cultural practices; instead, the receiving system is responsible for selecting cultural
practices by providing the reinforcing consequences necessary to maintain the practices.
A more recent effort was made by Glenn and eight other collaborators (all of them
having an important history of research and publication on the metacontingency) to
propose a consistent terminology regarding metacontingency and related concepts
(Glenn et al., 2016). They wrote:
In April, 2015, a group of 12 behaviorists was convened in Sāo Paulo by João

Claudio Todorov to resolve differences in terminology used in behavioral publi-
cations on cultural-level phenomena. . . . Todorov’s goal in convening the
meeting was that participants arrive at a consensus regarding definitions of
concepts viewed as important to the work of participants. Of particular interest
at the outset were definitions for the concepts of metacontingency,
macrocontingency and macrobehavior. (Glenn et al., 2016, p. 12, italics original)
And they provide the following rationale for the definition of the metacontingency
they propose:
During its nearly 30-year history, the concept of metacontingency had been
undergoing more or less continuous development. Given the variations in
definition, the group agreed to seek consensus on a definition having the mini-
mum number of terms possible. Without denying that metacontingencies could
be expanded to three or more terms…the group agreed that the minimum number
of metacontingency terms was two – comparable to response/consequence con-
tingencies first investigated by Skinner…The first term in a metacontingency
relation is interlocking behavioral contingencies (IBC) measured by their aggre-
gate product (AP). This term was viewed as analogous to movements of a
laboratory animal measured by the switch closure they produced. The second
term in a metacontingency relation is the consequences contingent on IBC/AP
(analogous to the delivery of food contingent on movements producing switch
closure in an operant experiment). (p. 13)
Finally, they defined the metacontingency as Ba contingent relation between 1)

recurring interlocking behavioral contingencies having an aggregate product
and 2) selecting environmental events or conditions^ (Glenn et al., 2016, p.
13, italics original).
The analogy to the behavior of individuals is apparent in this definition, as it would
be necessary to have analogous elements or processes found in the selection of
individual behavior (like having three terms) in the selection of cultural practices.
Besides that, the definition does not strongly differ from Glenn’s (1988) definition,
with the added distinction made by Glenn and Malott (2004c) between the aggregate
product and cultural consequences. Glenn et al. (2016) do, however, introduce a new
term; this term describes the interlocking behavioral contingency and aggregate product
as a singular unit - the culturant. Clearly an analogy with Boperant^, the definition of
the culturant, however, does not indicate a class of cultural practices defined by its
function (which would at least bring it closer to the definition of Boperant^ as a class of
behavior). Rather, it describes an arrangement of interrelated individual contingencies
and its products, which makes the use of term misleading to say the least.
In sum, the whole conceptual framework concerning the metacontingency has faced
changes from 1986 to 2016. Furthermore, from Glenn’s (1986) paper until the conjoint
effort of 2016 (Glenn et al., 2016), those changes were not guided by empirical data
until 2009. From the start (i.e., Glenn, 1986), the proposal of the metacontingency and
the assumptions behind it were a purely theoretical effort. As previously described,
Vichi et al. (2009) is considered the first experimental paper concerning the
metacontingency that was published in a peer-reviewed journal. This was 23 years
after Glenn’s (1986) seminal work. More importantly, all the conceptual elements
regarding the proposal were well established in the literature before Vichi et al.
(2009): from the starting assumption that cultural selection involves the emergence of
a new kind of process in need of a proper unit of analysis, passing through the very
definitions of the metacontingency and its auxiliary concepts (such as interlocking
behavioral contingency, macrocontingency, aggregate products, cultural consequences,
selecting environments), to the assumption that cultural consequences select
interlocking behavioral contingencies and not the behavior of individuals. Consequent-
ly, the entire field of the metacontingency was constructed solely on theoretical grounds
as opposed to being guided by experimental work or empirical data. This might explain
why the number of theoretical and interpretative articles is considerably greater than the
number of experimental or applied articles. The empirical data that came later
contributed only to the maintenance of a definition that was already developed in Glenn
(1988). The origin of the metacontingency does not resemble, for instance, the origin of
the Boperant^ (Coleman, 1981). Rather, it is closer to the Bcognitivist^ model of science
of proposing theoretical models supported by metaphors (in this case, the selection
metaphor) and testing it through theoretical analysis and experimental work (cf., Baars
& Gage, 2010) made after the model was proposed.
Experiments on the Metacontingency
A total of 27 experimental articles were found in our review. As stated previously, Vichi
et al. (2009) was the first experimental article about the metacontingency published in a
peer-reviewed journal. An interesting aspect about this research, which would serve as
guide for subsequent research (cf., Baia, Martone, Todorov, & de Souza, 2013; Martins
& Leite, 2016; Tourinho, 2013; Vichi & Tourinho, 2012), is that it was based on an
experiment carried by Wiggins (1969) in which no use of the metacontingency was
needed. This alone can raise doubts about the necessity of the metacontingency in order
to understand or explain the data. In the words of Vichi et al. (2009):
Wiggins’ experiment may be viewed as manipulating metacontingencies to show

control over the interlocking behavioral contingencies that produced equal and
unequal distributions. However, his data were based on a group design and
variables such as the different tasks assigned to each participant may have
reduced or increased the probabilities of occurrence of IBCs related to one or
other pattern of distribution. The present study was based on Wiggins experi-
mental design, but the experimental question was: if the success (reinforcement)
of individual behaviors (like betting money) is made dependent on an effect
(equal or unequal distribution of earnings) that is the consequence of other
behaviors that can only be emitted if all members of a group concur (the decision
of splitting the earnings equally or unequally), will such a consequence differen-
tially select interactions (IBCs) that lead to success? Or else is it possible to
change the interactions in a small group by making consequences contingent on
an aggregate outcome of group performance? (pp. 44-45)
The difference in relation to Wiggins (1969) experiment is that in Vichi et al. (2009)
cultural consequences (earning or loosing tokens) were contingent upon an aggregate
outcome: equally or unequally splitting the earnings (tokens) from the previous trial. It
was not participants’ behaviors related to splitting that were Bselected^, but the result
(aggregate outcome) of those behaviors (i.e., tokens divided equally or unequally
among them). So the first experimental question, made by Vichi et al. (2009), is flawed
given they did not differentially select IBCs. What happened in the IBCs did not matter
as long as the aggregate outcome was produced.
After Vichi et al. (2009), experimental research was carried out with variations, but
maintained the common characteristic of manipulating the presentation of a cultural
consequence contingent upon the occurrence of an aggregate product. Variations
included, for instance, changing the rules describing the task (Smith, Houmanfar, &
Louis, 2011); alternating the presentation of a cultural consequence between two
aggregate outcomes (Soares, Cabral, Leite, & Tourinho, 2012); using different
consequences for individual behavior and aggregate outcomes (Soares et al., 2012); and
adapting the iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma Game (PDG) to the experimental setting
(Morford & Cihon, 2013; Nogueira & Vasconcelos, 2015; Ortu, Becker, Woeltz, &
Glenn, 2012). The PDG experimental arrangement has been used to analyze the role of
verbal behavior (Hosoya & Tourinho, 2016; Sampaio et al., 2013); to focus on self-
control (Borba, Silva, et al., 2014; Borba, Tourinho, & Glenn, 2014, 2017); to change
the magnitude of cultural and individual consequences (Baia, Azevedo, Segantini,
Macedo, & Vasconcelos, 2015); with non-contingent presentation of cultural conse-
quences (Marques & Tourinho, 2015); to explore concurrent cultural consequences
(Baia & Vasconcelos, 2015) as well as different cultural consequences (Baia, Azevedo,
Segantini, Macedo, & Vasconcelos, 2015), and to explore intermittent cultural conse-
quences (Soares, Martins, Leite, & Tourinho, 2015). However, the continued use of the
PDG in these experiments raises a red flag about the necessity of the metacontingency
given the PDG has been used for a considerable time in psychological experiments in
order to study cooperation without using the metacontingency.
A detailed review of experimental work with respect to the metacontingency is not
presented here as Baia et al. (2013), Vichi and Tourinho (2012), Tourinho (2013), and
Martins and Leite (2016) have already done this. The last three papers listed here,
however, were identified in our analysis under the Breview^ subcategory. Therefore, a
few points related to these papers should be highlighted.
Martins and Leite (2016) focused on experimental research carried out in Brazil.
According to their review, the majority of experimental work on the metacontingency
was published only as master theses, which means that they were not published as
articles in peer-reviewed journals. This considerably diminishes the audience for those
works (for instance, they were not included in the current analysis). In addition, it
bypasses the important process of being subjected to peer review. Martins and Leite
also showed that changing generations (i.e., changing subjects during the experiments),
differentiating contingencies related to individual consequences and cultural conse-
quences, and presenting individual and cultural consequences of different kinds were
the main variables manipulated in metacontingency experiments. That is understand-
able, as cultural consequences supposedly select cultural practices (defined as IBCs +
aggregate products [APs]), not the behavior of individuals, according to the
metacontingency literature. The idea that cultural consequences select culturants (IBCs
+ APs), not the behavior of individuals, is paramount to support the need for a new unit
of analysis related to a different kind of selection.
In consonance with this research agenda, Vichi and Tourinho (2012), as well as
Tourinho (2013), discussed the role of consequences selecting individual behavior
(Bbehavioral consequences^) or of consequences selecting interlocking contingencies
and their aggregate product (Bcultural consequences^). Both reviewed experiments that
established different criteria for delivering individual consequences and cultural con-
sequences, sometimes manipulating only cultural consequences and, in some cases,
manipulating both individual and cultural consequences. However, it is not clear how a
cultural consequence could select contingencies of any kind without being through the
selection of the behavior of individuals. Organisms are sensible to consequences;
contingencies are not. Contingencies do not Bbehave^; the contingency is only a
conceptual tool used by behavior analysis in order to understand the selection of
behavior, whether it is cultural or not.
The experiments Vichi and Tourinho (2012) and Tourinho (2013) describe actually
established contingent relations between the occurrence of an aggregate product and a
consequence (defined by the authors as Bcultural^). The details of the interlocking
contingencies are absent; what happens during social relations among the participants
(in the interlocking contingencies) seems not to be of primary interest, as long as the
aggregate product occurs. Nonetheless, that does not mean the aggregate product or
even the interlocking contingencies are what is selected. It is the same as saying that a
specific number of t-shirts sold (aggregate product) in a store was selected by a cultural
consequence (bonuses), and not the behavior of the sellers no matter if they constituted
interlocking contingencies or not. In this context, Tourinho (2013) discussed experi-
ments in which the cultural consequence was not for the members of the group;
therefore, the cultural consequences did not act as consequences for their behaviors.
Individual consequences were Btokens exchangeable for money^ while the cultural
ones were Bstamps exchangeable for items to be donated as a kit to schoolchildren^
(Tourinho, 2013, p. 63). However, the very fact that participants were aware of the
outcome to the others (donation of school items) is sufficient to blur the line between
the individual and cultural consequences. One could argue that each participant emitted
the required behavior to produce the aggregate product for different reasons, like being
under the control of the reinforcing effects of helping others, or being under the control
of ethical rules about helping the needy, and so on.
In sum, more than half of the experiments on the metacontingency are adaptations of
procedures used to study cooperation without the need for the metacontingency as a
conceptual framework. For instance, ten were directly or indirectly related to Wiggins’
(1969) matrix (Borba, Tourinho, & Glenn, 2014; Borba et al., 2017; Borba et al., 2014;
Franceschini, Samelo, Xavier, & Hunziker, 2012; Hosoya & Tourinho, 2016; Marques
& Tourinho, 2015; Pavanelli, Leite, & Tourinho, 2014; Soares et al., 2012; Soares et al.,
2015; Vichi et al., 2009) and four were derived from game theory dilemmas (prisoner’s
dilemma and tragedy of commons; Ortu et al., 2012; Costa, Nogueira, & Vasconcelos,
2012; Morford & Cihon, 2013; Nogueira & Vasconcelos, 2015). In addition, the focus
on the occurrence of an aggregate product in order to present cultural consequences
seems to treat social interactions (i.e., the interlocked behaviors of individuals in a
group setting) as secondary. This is odd to say the least, given the goal of the whole
field is to understand social or cultural practices and Bpractices^ denotes Bbehaviors^
and not only its products (aggregate outcomes). Finally, the data available do not seem
to support the major theoretical claim made in the metacontingency literature that we
are dealing with a new process of selection occurring upon IBCs and APs and not the
behavior of individuals. It seems that the metacontingency does not describe a new
process of selection after all. More precisely, one could argue that the metacontingency
does not provide support for the so-called Bthird kind of selection^ (Skinner, 1981, p.
502). This does not mean, of course, that processes at the cultural level not grasped by
contingency analysis do not exist. It means only that, if they do exist, the
metacontingency does not seems to be a useful way of studying it given the processes
studied in the metacontingency experiments appear to be explainable solely by contin-
gency analysis (cf., Zilio, 2016). Maybe the metacontingency is only a procedural
concept. It does not describe a new kind of process at all, referring solely to the
procedure of delivering consequences called Bcultural^ contingent upon aggregate
products (Todorov, 2012).
The Metacontingency in Applied Research
All nine of the applied research studies that mention the metacontingency were carried out
in organizational contexts (Baker et al., 2015; Camden & Ludwig, 2013; Clayton,
Mawhinney, Luke, & Cook, 1997; Goomas & Ludwig, 2017; Jessup & Stahelski,
1999; Langeland, Johnson, & Mawhinney, 1998; Mawhinney, 1999; Palmer &
Johnson, 2013; Robertson & Pelaez, 2016). However, these studies did not actually use
it in the intervention Clayton et al. (1997), for instance, applied differential reinforcement
with employees who arrived on time and to decentralize the control of overtime (specific
people at each department were in charge of controlling the use of overtime by em-
ployees). The metacontingency was mentioned only following the intervention in the
authors’ description of the organizational dynamics. Clayton et al. (1997) wrote,
This study concerns a change in metacontingencies that included the costs of

overtime and staffing coverage at critical times. Specifically, the study describes
methods aimed at reducing costs of overtime while maintaining or improving
staffing at critical times. As a metacontingency in the settings where the inter-
ventions took place, cost savings represented organizational accomplishments
important to maintaining economic viability of the organization. The independent
variable at the core of the intervention was decentralization or delegation of
management’s control over budgeting decisions among smaller organizational
sub-units to the middle-level management of those units. (pp. 81-82)
Langeland et al. (1998) described an intervention aimed to improve staff performance in a

mental health context. They used Borganizational behavior management techniques^
(Langeland et al., 1998, p. 21) which were not based on the metacontingency, namely,
clarification of job descriptions (operationalization of behaviors associated with the job),
performance feedback (positive reinforcement), goal setting, and praise from the super-
visor contingent upon appropriate behavior (positive reinforcement). The
metacontingency was an interpretative concept used to describe the organizational system
as a whole, but was not necessary in planning the intervention. Langeland et al. state, BIn
this paper the context of the mental health agency is characterized using the concept of
metacontingencies and then the methods of changing the metacontingencies are described
in terms of traditional OBM behavior change methods^ (p. 23).
The same goes for the remaining articles found. Mawhinney (1999) is actually a
false positive, for being an analysis of a research by Pedalino and Gamboa (1993)
who did not even mention the metacontingency. Jessup and Stahelski (1999) also
used standard organizational behavior management (OBM) interventions, such as
performance feedback, goal clarification, and tangible reinforcers. Camden and
Ludwig (2013) used performance feedback to describe the frequency of appropriate
and inappropriate behavior. Palmer and Johnson (2013) used task clarification
(operationalization of appropriate behaviors) and graphic feedback to describe the
frequency of appropriate behaviors. Baker et al. (2015) evaluated the effects of a
curricular change in a medical school by applying questionnaires and surveys.
Therefore, it is not actually an intervention envisioning changes in cultural practices.
Besides that, the metacontingency only played an interpretative role in the description
of cultural practices affected by the curricular change.
Robertson and Pelaez (2016) described an intervention in a university setting Bby

changing macrobehaviors through changing reinforcement systems at the level of
individual learning and changing metacontingencies particularly through the manipu-
lation of rules^ (p. 10, italics on the original). However, manipulations of reinforcement
contingencies and rules do not rely on the metacontingency; they are changes in
contingencies affecting the behavior of individuals. It is nonsense to say, for instance,
that interlocking behavioral contingencies (or the relation between interlocking behav-
ioral contingencies and an aggregate product as a unit) can be rule-governed: a set of
interlocking contingencies is not an Borganism^, it does not behave at all, so it cannot
be rule-governed. The behavior of persons in groups can be rule-governed. To say that
contingencies (interlocking or not, social or not) can be rule-governed is a category
mistake (Ryle, 1949): to attribute a property (being rule-governed) related to one
category (behavior) to another (contingencies). Again, in Robertson and Pelaez
(2016) the metacontingency (and other concepts related to it) seems to assume only
an interpretative role in describing the dynamics of the university as a microculture.
The last study was carried by Goomas and Ludwig (2017) and is one more example
of using standard OBM technics to meet organizational demands. Specifically, they
used visual and audio feedback contingent upon the behaviors of order selectors in
order to increase the efficiency of product recall. Therefore, it represents one more case
in which the metacontingency was not necessary to carry out the intervention.
Two conclusions can be made in the light of such findings. First, if one argues that
the main contribution of the metacontingency lies in its potential role in promoting
effective action (i.e., solving human problems) as it relates to Skinner’s (1961, 1971)
ideas on cultural planning via applications in social settings, then that does not seem to
be the case here. After all, the aforementioned applied studies that mention the
metacontingency were carried out in organizational contexts – not quite what Skinner
had Bin mind^ when he wrote about cultural planning. In addition, many have noted
that changing cultural practices via application of behavior analysis does not seem to
need a new unit of analysis (cf., Biglan, 1995, 2015; Cone & Hayes, 1984; Guerin,
1994, 2005, 2016).
Second, given this situation one might argue that the metacontingency has found its
utility as an organizational tool and not as a cultural planning tool. However, this does
not seem to be the case either. All nine applied articles found did not actually use the
metacontingency in the interventions. All cultural changes described in those articles
were made by manipulating operant contingencies of selection. Being one of the five
papers under the subcategory of reviews, the review by Houmanfar, Herbst, and Chase
(2003) on organizational settings published in JOBM from 1990 to 2003 supports this
conclusion. The research reviewed by the authors also did not actually use the
metacontingency in the interventions in organizations.
Criticisms on the Metacontingency
Eleven critical essays were found during the review of the literature (Carrara & Zilio,
2015; Delgado, 2012; Hobbs, 2004, 2006; Krispin, 2016; Marr, 2006; Mattaini, 2004,
2006, 2007; Salzinger, 2004; Ulman, 2004). Mattaini (2006), for example, writes that
the Bmetacontingency does not seem to help us to understand the dynamics of selection
present^ (p. 70). Carrara and Zilio (2015) discussed the novelty and explanatory range
of the metacontingency. They argue that a more parsimonious, empirically based view
of cultural practices grounded on a three-term contingency analysis seems to be
possible. Salzinger (2004) also supports a contingency-based analysis of cultural (and
specifically, organizational) practices:
The key, it seems to me, to gaining an understanding of an organization is to

understand the components…It is probably best to learn to understand organiza-
tions by surveying the various interlocking reinforcement contingencies and
determining which ones are critical, one at a time. (p. 141)
Hobbs (2006) and Marr (2006) focused on the empirical studies related to the
metacontingency and concluded: Bnone…seemed to require the use of any analytical
tools other than those which behavior analysts apply when studying individuals^
(Hobbs, 2006, p. 11) and BI don’t really see much that’s new here (apart from some
terminology) that had not been the major focus of systems design and operations
research in such fields as industrial engineering and management science for many,
many years^ (Marr, 2006, p. 62).
Delgado (2012) discussed the pitfalls of the selection metaphor. For Delgado, the
metaphoric vocabulary of selectionism present in the metacontingency literature is
unnecessary (as may be the metacontingency itself), Bthe availability of tacting terms
for contingency relations (whether the unit is molar as in IBCs, or molecular as the
behavior of single organisms) without reference to the terminology used in evolution-
ary theories, render the use of this terminology unnecessary^ (p. 18). Delgado also
noted that the selection metaphor brings more questions than answers about the
metacontingency and the macrocontingency,
…several points with respect to these two concepts have remained unclear. As a
result, divergent interpretations have been developed generating a fair amount of
conceptual ambiguity. For example, there is currently a lack of consensus as to
whether the unit of analysis is interlocked behavior or interlocked contingen-
cies…In relation to this it has been discussed whether the level of analysis of
cultural phenomena is behavioral, cultural or sociological…and little consensus
has been reached. Another issue that lacks sufficient clarity is the functional role
of the product in the metacontingency and the IBC [interlocking behavioral
contingency]. - How exactly is the product defined? - Is it functionally different
from an environmental consequence? - Why has it become relevant only in the
metacontingency and not in the behavioral contingency? (p. 15)
Similarly, Krispin (2016) focused on the idea that the selection of cultural practices
needs a proper unit of analysis (metacontingency) to be an emergent process. After
reviewing arguments for emergence present in metacontingency literature, he conclud-
ed, Bin each of these claims of emergence, the phenomenon involved appear to be
readily explained by processes operating at the psychological-, or behavioral-level^ (p.
39).
In sum, each of these critical papers seems to question the necessity and usefulness
of the metacontingency as a unit of analysis for studying social or cultural practices.
One could argue, therefore, that this is probably one of the main problems faced by the
model.
Final Thoughts
The majority of articles related to the metacontingency are theoretical or interpretative

(76% of total), both armchair practices. A major theme among the theoretical articles is
discussions on the very definition of the metacontingency and its related concepts (e.g.,
Andery, 2011; Andery et al., 2005; Couto & Sandaker, 2016; Glenn, 1986, 1988, 1003;
Glenn & Malott, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2004d, 2004e, 2004f, 2004g, 2004h; Glenn
et al., 2016; Houmanfar & Rodrigues, 2006; Houmanfar et al., 2010; Martone &
Todorov, 2007; Todorov, 2005, 2012, 2013; Todorov & Moreira, 2004; Tourinho &
Vichi, 2012). This could mean that even those who adopt the model as an explanatory
tool do not know what exactly it stands for (the worst case scenario) or may have
divergent definitions (which is also not a good indicator of conceptual robustness).
Consistency in the definition of the metacontingency and its related concepts is a
concern addressed by Glenn et al. (2016) who sought to establish a common definition.
However, it is also important to consider that the definition of metacontingency, the
revision of the definition, and the addition of new concepts (such as aggregate product
or outcome, culturant, macrocontingency, macrobehavior) were not made under the
control of empirical data. It was a purely theoretical endeavor from the beginning. Even
the theoretical claims supporting the necessity of the metacontingency were made
solely on theoretical grounds, the main argument being that the unit of selection by
cultural consequences is the relation between interlocking behavioral contingencies and
their aggregate outcomes/products. The empirical data from metacontingency experi-
ments are not clear about that, to say the least. Hobbs (2006), for example, concludes
that the data could be explained without the metacontingency, an impression reinforced
by the fact the majority of experimental work on the metacontingency are adaptations
of experimental designs used to study social relations (especially cooperation) without
the need for a new unit of analysis, as was argued in the section dedicated to the
experimental articles.
Further, one could argue that the metacontingency has a heuristic value for its
interpretative function. Indeed, interpretative articles were second in quantity (20% of
the total; second only to theoretical articles with 56%). The interpretations focused on a
variety of social phenomena: Brazilian constitution and laws (Araújo, De Melo, &
Haydu, 2015; Cabral & Todorov, 2015; Todorov, 1987, 2005), Soviet Union economy
and policy (Rakos, 1991; Lamal, 1991), behavioral sexual maladaptation (Mawhinney,
1998), university collegiate contingencies (Lamal, Rakos, & Greenspoon, 2000), traffic
(Dagen & Alavosius, 2008; Lé Sénéchal-Machado & Todorov, 2008), family (Naves &
Vasconcelos, 2008), piracy in Somalia (Ward, 2009), environment and sustainability
(Escobar, 2012), and media (Wilhite & Houmanfar, 2015) among others. Does the
metacontingency find its utility in interpretation? One could respond yes; it is possible
to carry out interpretations of complex social phenomena using the metacontingency.
The thirty interpretative articles found proves that.
However, if we adopt Skinner’s (Skinner, 1988; cf., Donahoe, 2004; Palmer, 2011)
definition of interpretation, a problem may arise with arguing for the value of the
metacontingency by its usefulness in interpretation. Skinner argues that we gain an

understanding of a phenomenon based upon the knowledge produced in the experi-
mental domain. Metacontingency interpretations are not based upon knowledge pro-
duced in the experimental domain. They are purely based on theoretical grounds.
Interpretations were made before any experiment on the metacontingency and the
experiments made do not seem to provide a strong empirical base to support interpre-
tations. In addition, the interpretations made after the experimental works were con-
ducted are not conceptually different then the ones made before the empirical data were
collected. This suggests that experimental and interpretative practices occurred in
parallel without much influence of the first on the second. In sum, the trajectory was
solely theoretical, from the first proposal of the concept to its use in interpretations of
social phenomena. It is different, for instance, from Skinner’s interpretations of social
dynamics (Skinner, 1953/Skinner, 1965, Skinner, 1971) or of verbal behavior (Skinner,
1957), which were based on knowledge about the contingencies of selection gathered
through the experimental analysis of behavior. As a consequence, one can argue this
makes the possibility of interpretation using the metacontingency a weak argument for
its usefulness. After all, we can make Binterpretations^ of social phenomena using any
model or theory not circumscribed by empirical data, as long as they are about the
social phenomena. The sky is the limit. However, if one argues the empirical data are to
be found in the Btraditional^ experimental analysis of behavior, then the problem of the
necessity of the metacontingency arises again, given those data are about contingencies
of selection and are not about metacontingencies.
One clear example of this situation can be found in Todorov’s (2009) discussion of
the use of the metacontingency to analyze non-experimental data (one of the five papers
included as a review). Todorov pointed out, Bprediction and confirmation do not require
experimentation^ (p. 10). Nonetheless, to locate and describe the variables of which a
phenomenon is a function does require experimentation. If events A and B occasionally
occur together (or successively), it is possible in a sense to predict the occurrence of one
by observing the occurrence of the other. However, that does not mean events A and B
are functionally related. It is not clear, by its turn, what Todorov meant by
Bconfirmation^. If Bconfirmation^ means to confirm if variables X, Y, Z are function-
ally related to event E, then confirmation requires experimentation. If, on the other
hand, Bconfirmation^ means only that a prediction based solely on observation is
confirmed by the very occurrence of the event predicted, then confirmation does not
require experimentation indeed. But, it does not entail an explanation either. One
interesting example Todorov (2009) uses to make his case is the work by Lé
Sénéchal-Machado and Todorov (2008) in which they analyzed a social intervention
done in Brasília that had as the objective the proper use of crosswalks.
Up to 1996 the crosswalk sign on streets was utterly ignored by drivers and
pedestrians everywhere in Brazil. Since 1996 it is safe to use the crosswalks in
Brasília, but only in Brasília; the rest of the country did not change. Cultural
practices of drivers and pedestrians changed after a concerted effort involving
government, the media, nongovernmental organizations, churches, schools, and
civil associations in general. The campaign involved publicity of rules: the law
supposed to control the use of crosswalks. It also involved modeling: both
professional and amateur artists showed how to use the crosswalk, both in vivo
and in schools. Finally, after three months of rules and modeling, pedestrians and
drivers were exposed to the contingencies: fines for those misbehaving, with the
media showing everyone else who was being fined. (Todorov, 2009, p. 13)
In trying to make a case for the utility of metacontingency, one could readily see a
possible problem with Lé Sénéchal-Machado and Todorov (2008): it is a post-hoc
interpretation of a large-scale intervention that did not use the metacontingency when
planned and implemented. This suggests that the concept might not be necessary after
all if our goal is to change cultural practices in a social relevant way; we can do this by
manipulating only contingencies of selection (cf., Biglan, 1995, 2015; Cone & Hayes,
1984; Guerin, 1994, 2005, 2016). The domain of application also casts doubt on the
necessity of the metacontingency. In 30 years, not a single application was carried out
in which the metacontingency was paramount. All nine articles found described
interventions at contingency level (Baker et al., 2015; Camden & Ludwig, 2013;
Clayton et al., 1997; Goomas & Ludwig, 2017; Jessup & Stahelski, 1999; Langeland
et al., 1998; Mawhinney, 1999; Palmer & Johnson, 2013; Robertson & Pelaez, 2016).
This article began as an exercise in establishing a possible criterion from which
30 years of publications regarding the metacontingency in peer-reviewed journals could
be evaluated. As defined earlier, this criterion would be related to its usefulness in
promoting effective action. Therefore, is the metacontingency a useful or necessary
concept to explain social processes (cultural practices) and to promote effective action
(i.e., solve human problems)? Unfortunately, it seems the utility or necessity of the
metacontingency as a unit of analysis (beyond the contingency) required for studying
cultural practices has yet to be proven. Considering three decades have passed since its
first appearance (Glenn, 1986), one may wonder if the time has come to explore
alternative conceptual pathways in studying social and cultural practices.
Acknowledgements I would like to thank Kester Carrara and Sílvio Botomé for their helpful comments on
early drafts of the manuscript. I also would like to thank Traci Cihon, Camila Muchon de Melo and an
anonymous reviewer for their suggestions.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest Author Diego Zilio declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed
by the author.
References
The 148 papers selected for analysis are marked with asterisks (*)
*Andery, M. A. P. A. (2011). Comportamento e cultura na perspectiva da análise do comportamento [Behavior

and culture: The behavior analytic perspective]. Perspectivas em Análise do Comportamento, 2(2), 203–
217. https://doi.org/10.18761/perspectivas.v2i2.69
Andery, M. A. P. A., & Sério, T. M. A. P. (2005). O conceito de metacontingências: Afinal, a velha

contingência de reforçamento é insuficiente? [The concept of metacontingency: After all, is the old
contingency of reinforcement sufficient? In J. C. Todorov, R. C. Martone, & M. B. Moreira (Org.),
Metacontingências: Comportamento, cultura e sociedade [Metacontingencies: Behavior, culture and
society] (pp. 149–159). Santo André: ESETec Editores Associados.
*Andery, M. A. P. A., Micheletto, N., & Sério, T. M. A. P. (2005). A análise de fenômenos sociais: esboçando
uma proposta para a identificação de contingências entrelaçadas e metacontingências [Analysis of social
phenomena: Identifying interlocking contingencies and metacontingencies]. Revista Brasileira de Análise
do Comportamento, 1(2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.18542/rebac.v1i2.2167
*Andery, M. A. P. A., Sério, T. M. A. P. (2003). Metacontingencias y dialéctica: ¿Son incompatibles?
[Metacontingencies and dialectics: Incompatibles?]. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 35(3),
273–280.
*Angelo, H., & Gioia, P. (2015). Aumento abrupto da razão em metacontingências com consequências
intermitentes [Abrupt raise of ratio in metacontingencies with intermittent consequences]. Revista
Brasileira de Análise do Comportamento, 11(2), 170–183. https://doi.org/10.18542/rebac.v11i2.1942
*Araújo, V., De Melo, C. M., & Haydu, V. (2015). Código penal brasileiro como descrição de prática cultural:
Uma análise comportamental de contingências e metacontingências [Brazilian penal code as description
of a cultural practice: A behavioral analysis of contingencies and metacontingencies]. Revista Brasileira
de Análise do Comportamento, 11(2), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.18542/rebac.v11i2.1943
Baars, B. J., & Gage, N. M. (2010). Cognition, brain, and consciousness: Introduction to cognitive neuro-
science (2nd. ed.). London: Academic Press.
Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1968.1-91.
*Baia, F., Azevedo, F., Segantini, S., & Macedo, R. (2015). Efeitos de diferentes magnitudes de consequências
individuais e culturais sobre culturantes [Effects of different magnitudes of individual consequences and
cultural consequences on culturants ́ selection]. Acta Comportamentalia, 23(3), 257–272.
*Baia, F., Azevedo, F., Segantini, S., Macedo, R., & Vasconcelos, L. (2015). O efeito de diferentes tipos de
consequências culturais na seleção de culturantes [Effects of different kinds of cultural consequences on
cultural selection]. Revista Brasileira de Análise do Comportamento, 11(2), 157–169. https://doi.
org/10.18542/rebac.v11i2.1528
Baia, F., Martone, R. C., Todorov, J. C., & de Souza, E. P. (2013). Estudos experimentais de práticas culturais
[Experimental studies on cultural practices]. In M. B. Moreira (Ed.), Comportamento e práticas culturais
(pp. 253–278). Brasilia: Instituto Walden4.
*Baia, F., & Vasconcelos, L. (2015). Efeitos de consequências culturais concorrentes na seleção de culturantes
[Effects of concurrent cultural consequences upon culturants]. Revista Brasileira de Análise do
Comportamento, 11(2), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.18542/rebac.v11i2.3781
*Baker, T., Schwenk, T., Piasecki, M., Smith, G., Reimer, D., Jacobs, N., Shonkwiler, G., Hagen, J., &
Houmanfar, R. (2015). Cultural change in a medical school: A data-driven management of entropy.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 35, 95–122. https://doi.org/10.1080
/01608061.2015.1035826.
Biglan, A. (1995). Changing cultural practices: A contextualist framework for intervention research. Nevada:
Context Press.
*Biglan, A. (2009). The role of advocacy organizations in reducing negative externalities. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 29, 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608060903092086.
Biglan, A. (2015). The nurture effect: How the science of human behavior can improve our lives and our
world. Oakland: New Harbinger Publications.
Biglan, A. (2016). The need for a more effective science of cultural practices. The Behavior Analyst, 39(1),
97–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-016-0051-z.
*Bohrer, K., & Ellis, J. (1998). Analysis of contingencies and metacontingencies in a private sector workplace.
Behavior and Social Issues, 8, 41–52. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v8i1.319.
*Borba, A., Silva, B., Cabral, P., Souza, L., Leite, F., & Tourinho, E. Z. (2014). Effects of exposure to
macrocontingencies in isolation and social situations in the production of ethical self-control. Behavior
and Social Issues, 23, 5–19. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v23i0.4237.
*Borba, A., Tourinho, E. Z., & Glenn, S. (2014). Establishing the macrobehavior of ethical self-control in an
arrangement of macrocontingencies in two microcultures. Behavior and Social Issues, 23, 68–86.
https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v23i0.5354.
*Borba, A., Tourinho, E. Z., & Glenn, S. (2017). Effects of cultural consequences on the interlocking
behavioral contingencies of ethical self-control. The Psychological Record, 67(3), 399–411. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40732-017-0231-6.
*Bortoloti, R., & D’Agostino, R. (2007). Ações pelo controle produtivo e posse responsável de animais
domésticos interpretadas à luz do conceito de metacontingências [Actions for reproductive control and
responsible ownership of domestic animals interpreted through the concept of metacontingency]. Revista
*Branch, M. (2006). Reactions of a laboratory behavioral scientist to a "think tank" on metacontingencies and
cultural analysis. Behavior and Social Issues, 15, 6–10. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v15i1.343
*Brayko, C., Houmanfar, R., & Ghezzi, E. (2016). Organized cooperation: A behavioral perspective on
volunteerism. Behavior and Social Issues, 25, 77–98. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v25i0.6739.
*Brown, L., & Houmanfar, R., (2014). The cost of affluence: A closer look at the food industry. Behavior and
Social Issues, 24, 4–22. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v24i0.4946.
Buzzo, R. F., & Carvalho Neto, M. B. (2003). Algumas possíveis relações entre as concepções de ciência de F.
Bacon e B. F. Skinner [Some possible relationships between scientific conceptions of F. Bacon and B. F.
Skinner]. Interações em Psicologia, 7(2), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.5380/psi.v7i2.3227.
*Cabral, M., & Todorov, J. C. (2015). Contingências e metacontingências no processo legislativo da lei sobre
a remição da pena pelo estudo [Contingencies and metacontingencies in a law on diminishing time in
prison through education]. Revista Brasileira de Análise do Comportamento, 11(2), 195–202. https://doi.
org/10.18542/rebac.v11i2.4013
*Camden, M., & Ludwig, T. (2013). Absenteeism in health care: Using interlocking behavioral contingency
feedback to increase attendance with certified nursing assistants. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 33, 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2013.814521.
*Carrara, K, Souza, V., Oliveira, D., Orti, N., Lourencetti, L., & Lopes, F. (2013). Desenvolvimento de guia e
fluxograma como suporte para delineamentos culturais [Guide and flow-chart development as support for
cultural designs]. Acta Comportamentalia, 21(1), 99–119.
*Carrara, K., & Zilio, D. (2015). Análise comportamental da cultura: Contingência ou metacontingência como
undiade de análise? [Behavior analysis of culture: Contingency or Metacontingency as the unit of
analysis?]. Revista Brasileira de Análise do Comportamento, 11(2), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.18542
/rebac.v11i2.1944
*Carvalho, L. C., Couto, K., Gois, N., Sandaker, I., & Todorov, J. C. (2016). Evaluating effects of cultural
consequences on the variability of interlocking behavioral contingencies and their aggregate products.
European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 18, 84–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2016.1231003.
*Clayton, M., Mawhinney, T. C., Luke, D. E., & Cook, H. (1997). Improving the management of overtime
costs through decentralized controls. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 17(2), 77–98.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v17n02_03.
Coleman, S. R. (1981). Historical context and systematic functions of the concept of the operant. Behaviorism,
9(2), 207–226.
Cone, J. D., & Hayes, S. C. (1984). Environmental problems / behavioral solutions. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
*Costa, D., Nogueira, C., Vasconcelos, L. (2012). Effects of communication and cultural consequences on
choices combinations in INPDG with four participants. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 44(1),
121–131.
*Couto, K., & Sandaker, I. (2016). Natural, behavioral and cultural selection-analysis: An integrative
approach. Behavior and Social Issues, 25, 54–60. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v25i0.6891.
Critchfield, T. S., & Reed, D. D. (2017). The fuzzy concept of applied behavior analysis research. Journal of
the Applied Behavior Analysis, 40(1), 123–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-017-0093-x.
*Dagen, J., & Alavosius, M. (2008). Bicyclist and motorist environments: Exploring interlocking behavioral
contingencies. Behavior and Social Issues, 17, 139–160. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v17i2.2062.
*Dams, P. C. (1997). Providing effective interventions may not be enough: The importance of cost analysis in
the behavioral health system. Behavior and Social Issues, 7(2), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v7
i2.312.
*Delgado, D. (2012). The selection metaphor: The concepts of metacontingencies and macrocontingencies
revisited. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 44(1), 13–24.
Donahoe, J. (2004). Interpretation and experimental-analysis: An underappreciated distinction. European
Journal of Behavior Analysis, 5(2), 83–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2004.10446387.
*Ellis, J., & Magee, S. (2007). Contingencies, macrocontingencies and metacontingencies in current educa-
tional practices. Behavior and Social Issues, 16, 5–26. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v16i1.361.
*Escobar, M. S. (2012). Comportamiento sustentable y educación ambiental: Una visión desde las prácticas
culturales [Sustainable behavior and environmental education: One view from cultural practices]. Revista
Latinoamericana de Psicología, 44(1), 181–196.
*Forero, D. D. R., García, D. A., Silva, L. M., López-López. (2012). Análisis metacontingencial de la ley de
"justicia y paz" (975 de 2005) en Colombia [Metacontingency analysis of the Bjustice and peace^ law
(975 from 2005) in Colombia]. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 44(1), 149–157.
*Foxall, G. (2015). Consumer behavior analysis and the marketing firm: Bilateral contingency in the context
of environmental concern. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 35, 44–69. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01608061.2015.1031426.
*Fraley, L. (1998). New ethics and practices for death and dying from an analysis of the sociocultural
metacontingencies. Behavior and Social Issues, 8, 9–39. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v8i1.318.
*Franceschini, A. C. T., Samelo, M. J., Xavier, R. N., Hunziker, M. H. L. (2012). Effects of consequences on
patterns of interlocked contingencies: A replication of a metacontingency experiment. Revista
*Glenn, S. (1986). Metacontingencies in Walden Two. Behavior Analysis and Social Action, 5(1), 2–8.
*Glenn, S. (1988). Contingencies and metacontingencies: Toward a synthesis of behavior analysis and cultural
materialism. The Behavior Analyst, 11(2), 161–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392470.
*Glenn, S. (1989). Verbal behavior and cultural practices. Behavior Analysis and Social Action, 7(1–2),
10–15.
Glenn, S. (2003). Operant contingencies and the origin of cultures. In K. Lattal & P. Chase (Eds.), Behavior
theory and philosophy (pp. 223–242). New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers.
*Glenn, S. (2004). Individual behavior, culture, and social change. The Behavior Analyst, 27(2), 133–151.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393175.
*Glenn, S. (2010). Metacontingencies, selection and OBM: Comments on "emergence and metacontingency".
*Glenn, S. (2015). Comportamento individual, cultura e mudança social [Individual behavior, culture and
social change]. Revista Brasileira de Análise do Comportamento, 11(2), 208–222. (Original work
published 2004). https://doi.org/10.18542/rebac.v11i2.4015
*Glenn, S., & Malott, M. (2004a). Are operant principles sufficient to understand organizations? Reply to
Salzinger. Behavior and Social Issues, 13, 143–144. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v13i2.25.
*Glenn, S., & Malott, M. (2004b). Behavioral and cultural classifications: Reply to Mattaini. Behavior and
*Glenn, S., & Malott, M. (2004c). Complexity and selection: Implications for organizational change. Behavior
and Social Issues, 13, 89–106. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v13i2.378.
*Glenn, S., & Malott, M. (2004d). Challenges to large scale change: Reply to Pennypacker. Behavior and
*Glenn, S., & Malott, M. (2004e). On conceptual challenges: Reply to Hayes and Houmanfar. Behavior and
*Glenn, S., & Malott, M. (2004f). Organizations and institutions: Reply to Ulman. Behavior and Social Issues,
13, 153–154. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v13i2.29.
*Glenn, S., & Malott, M. (2004g). Overcoming barriers to extrapolation: Reply to Hobbs. Behavior and Social
Issues, 13, 119–123. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v13i2.19.
*Glenn, S., & Malott, M. (2004h) Rules and metacontingencies: Reply to Sandaker. Behavior and Social
Issues, 13, 146. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v13i2.27.
*Glenn, S., Malott, M., Andery, M. A. P. A., Benvenuti, M., Houmanfar, R., Sandaker, I., Todorov, J. C.,
Tourinho, E. Z., & Vasconcelos, L. (2016). Toward consistent terminology in a behaviorist approach to
cultural analysis. Behavior and Social Issues, 25, 11–27. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v25i0.6634.
*Goltz, S., & Slade, D. (2016). The mapping of contingencies in mental models found in organizations.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 36(1), 23–55. https://doi.org/10.1080
/01608061.2016.1153015.
*Goomas, D., & Ludwig, T. (2017). Computerized immediate feedback increases product recall efficiency due
to interlocking contingencies in food manufacturing. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,
37(1), 96–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2016.1267067.
Guerin, B. (1994). Analyzing social behavior: Behavior analysis and the social sciences. Nevada: Context
Press.
Guerin, B. (2005). Handbook of interventions for changing people and communities. Nevada: Context Press.
Guerin, B. (2016). How to rethink human behavior: A practical guide to social contextual analysis. London:
Routledge.
*Gusmão, F., Martins, T., De Luna, S. V. (2011). Inclusão escolar como uma prática cultural: Uma análise
baseada no conceito de metacontingência [School inclusion as a cultural practice: An analysis based on
the concept of metacontingency]. Psicologia da Educação, 32(1), 69–87.
*Hayes, L., & Houmanfar, R. (2004). Units and measures: A response to Glenn and Malott. Behavior and
*Hobbs, S. (2004). Barriers to extrapolation? Behavior and Social Issues, 13, 116–118. https://doi.org/10.5210
/bsi.v13i2.18.
*Hobbs, S. (2006). The present and the future of cultural analysis. Behavior and Social Issues, 15, 11–12.
*Holburn, S., & Vietze, P. (2000). Person-centered planning and cultural inertia in applied behavior analysis.
*Hosoya, N., & Tourinho, E. (2016). Efeitos de interações verbais na seleção e manutenção de contingências
comportamentais entrelaçadas [Effects of verbal interactions in the selection and maintenance of
interlocking behavioral contingencies]. Acta Comportamentalia, 24(3), 331–345.
*Houmanfar, R., Alavosius, M., Morford, Z., Herbst, S., Reimer, D. (2015). Functions of organizational
leaders in cultural change: Financial and social well-being. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 35, 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2015.1035827.
*Houmanfar, R., Herbst, S., & Chase, J. (2003). Organizational change applications in behavior analysis: A
review of the literature and future directions. The Behavior Analyst Today, 4(1), 59–65. https://doi.
org/10.1037/h0100011
*Houmanfar, R., & Johnson, R. (2003). Organizational implications of gossip and rumor. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 29, 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v23n02_07.
*Houmanfar, R., Rodrigues, M., & Smith, G. (2009). Role of communication networks in behavioral systems
analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 29, 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1080
/01608060903092102.
*Houmanfar, R., & Rodrigues, N. J. (2006). The metacontingency and the behavioral contingency: Points of
contact and departure. Behavior and Social Issues, 15, 13–30. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v15i1.342.
*Houmanfar, R., Rodrigues, N. J., & Ward, T. (2010). Emergence and metacontingency: Points of contact and
departure. Behavior and Social Issues, 19, 78–103. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v19i0.3065.
*Houmanfar, R., & Ward, T. (2012). An interdisciplinary account of martyrdom as a religious practice. Revista
*Hunter, C. (2012). Analyzing behavioral and cultural selection contingencies. Revista Latinoamericana de
Psicología, 44(1), 43–54.
*Jessup, P., & Stahelski, A. (1999). The effects of a combined goal setting, feedback and incentive
intervention on job performance in a manufacturing environment. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 19(3), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v19n03_02.
Kitchener, R. F. (1996). Skinner’s theory of theories. In W. O’Donohoe & R. F. Kitchener (Eds.), The
philosophy of psychology (pp. 108–125). London: SAGE Publications.
*Krispin, J. V. (2016). What is the metacontingency? Deconstructing claims of emergence and cultural-level
of selection. Behavior and Social Issues, 25, 28–41. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v25i0.6186.
*Lamal, P. A. (1991). Three metacontingencies in the pre-perestroika soviet union. Behavior and Social
Issues, 1(1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v1i1.191.
*Lamal, P. A. (2001). Higher education: Social institution or business? Behavior and Social Issues, 11, 65–70.
*Lamal, P. A., & Greenspoon, J. (1992). Congressional metacontingencies. Behavior and Social Issues, 2(1),
71–81. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v2i1.176.
*Lamal, P. A., Rakos, R., & Greenspoon, J. (2000). Collegiate contingencies. The Behavior Analyst, 23(2),
219–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392012.
*Langeland, K., Johnson, C. M., & Mawhinney, T. (1998). Improving staff performance in a community
mental health setting. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 18(1), 21–43. https://doi.
org/10.1300/J075v18n01_03.
*Lé Sénéchal-Machado, V., & Todorov, J. C. (2008). A travessia na faixa de pedestre em Brasília (DF/Brasil):
Exemplo de uma intervenção cultural [Walking the crosswalk in Brasília (DF/Brazil): A cultural
intervention example]. Revista Brasileira de Análise do Comportamento, 4(2), 191–204. https://doi.
org/10.18542/rebac.v4i2.850
*Leite, F., De Souza, C. B. A. (2012). Metacontingencies, cultural selection and social/verbal environment.
Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 44(1), 35–42.
Littell, J. H., Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. New York: Oxford
University Press.
*Malagodi, E. F., & Jackson, K. (1989). Behavior analysts and cultural analysis: Troubles and issues. The
Behavior Analyst, 12(1), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392474.
*Malott, M. (2016a). Selection of business practices in the midst of evolving complexity. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 36 (2–3), 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1080
/01608061.2016.1200511.
*Malott, M. (2016b). What studying leadership can teach us about the science of behavior. The Behavior
Analyst, 39(1), 47–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-015-0049-y.
*Malott, M., & Glenn, S. (2006). Targets of intervention in cultural and behavioral change. Behavior and
*Marques, N., & Tourinho, E. (2015). The selection of cultural units by non-contingent cultural events.
*Marr, M. J. (2006). Behavior analysis and social dynamics: Some questions and concerns. Behavior and
Marr, M. J. (2013). Theory and philosophy: Themes and variations. The Behavior Analyst, 36(2), 193–195.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392305.
*Martins, J., & Leite, F. (2016). Metacontingências e macrocontingências: Revisão de pesquisas experimentais
brasileiras [Metacontingencies and macrocontingencies: A review of the Brazilian experimental research].
Acta Comportamentalia, 24(4), 453–469.
*Martone, R. C., & Todorov, J. C. (2007). O desenvolvimento do conceito de metacontingência [The
development of the metacontingency concept]. Revista Brasileira de Análise do Comportamento, 3(2),
181–190. https://doi.org/10.18542/rebac.v3i2.830
*Mattaini, M. (2004). Systems, metacontingencies, and cultural analysis: Are we there yet? Behavior and
*Mattaini, M. (2007). Editorial: Technical language and cultural analysis. Behavior and Social Issues, 16, 1–4.
*Mattaini, M. (2009). Editorial: The data are coming! Behavior and Social Issues, 18, 1–3.
*Mattaini, M., & Aspholm, R. (2016). Contributions of behavioral systems science to leadership for a new
progressive movement. The Behavior Analyst, 39(1), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-015-0043-
4.
*Mattaini, M. A. (2006). Will cultural analysis become a science? Behavior and Social Issues, 15, 68–80.
*Mawhinney, T. (1992). Total quality management and organizational behavior management: An integration
for continual improvement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(3), 525–543. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.1992.25-524.
*Mawhinney, T. (1993). Evolution of organizational cultures as selection by consequences: The gaia hypoth-
esis, metacontingencies, and organizational ecology. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,
12(2), 1–25.
*Mawhinney, T. (1995). Metabehaviors as discriminative stimuli for planned cultural evolution. Behavior and
Social Issues, 5(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v5i1.217.
*Mawhinney, T. (1998). Behavioral sexual maladaption contagion in America: An applied theoretical analysis.
*Mawhinney, T. (1999). Cumulatively large benefits of incrementally small intervention effects. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 18(4), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v18n04_06.
*Mawhinney, T. (2001). OBM today and tomorrow: Then and now. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 20(3–4), 73–137. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v20n03_04.
*Mawhinney, T. (2009). Identifying and extinguishing dysfunctional and deadly organizational practices.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 29, 231–256. https://doi.org/10.1080
/01608060903092094.
*Monestès, J. L., & Darcheville, J. C. (2000). Approche sélectionniste des phénomènes culturels: Analyse
expérimentale du comportement et materialisme culturel [A selectionist approach to cultural phenomena:
Experimental analysis of behavior and cultural materialism]. Acta Comportametnalia, 8(1), 77–95.
*Morford, Z., & Cihon, T. (2013). Developing an experimental analysis of metacontingencies: Considerations
regarding cooperation in a four-person prisoner's dilemma game. Behavior and Social Issues, 22(3), 5–20.
*Naves, A. R., & Vasconcelos, L. (2008). O estudo da família: Contingências e metacontingências [The family
study: Contingencies and metacontingencies]. Revista Brasileira de Análise do Comportamento, 4(1),
*Neves, A. B., Woeltz, T., & Glenn, S. (2012). Effect of resource scarcity on dyadic fitness in a simulation of
two-hunter nomoclones. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 44(1), 159–167.
*Neves, A. J. (2017). Uma interpretação analítico-comportamental de aspectos culturais e simbólicos da
fogueira de São João [A behavioral-analytic interpretation of cultural and symbolic aspects of Saint John’s
bonfire]. Perspectivas em Análise do Comportamento, 8(1), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.18761

/pac.2016.035
*Newman, B., Reinecke, D., & Kurtz, A. (1996). Why be moral: Humanist and behavioral perspectives. The
*Nogueira, A., & Sampaio, A. (2016). Análise de fenômenos sociais em um jogo on-line para múltiplos
jogadores [Social phenomena analysis in a massive multiplayer on-line game]. Perspectivas em Análise
do Comportamento, 7(1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.18761/pac.2015.037
*Nogueira, E., & Vasconcelos, L. (2015). De macrocontingências a metacontingências no jogo dilema dos
comuns [From macrocontingencies to metacontingencies in the dilemma of commons]. Revista Brasileira
de Análise do Comportamento, 11(2), 104–116. https://doi.org/10.18542/rebac.v11i2.1941
*Norton, W. (2001). Following rules in the intermontane west: 19th-century mormon settlement. The Behavior
Analyst, 24(1), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392019.
*Ortu, D., Becker, A. M., Woeltz, T. A. R., & Glenn, S. (2012). An iterated four-player prisoner's dilemma
game with an external selecting agent: A metacontingency experiment. Revista Latinoamericana de
Psicología, 44(1), 111–120.
Palmer, D. C. (2011). Consideration of private events is required in a comprehensive science of behavior. The
*Palmer, M., & Johnson, M. (2013). The effects of task clarification and group graphic feedback on early
punch-in times. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 33, 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1300
/J075v27n03_01.
*Páramo, P. (2010). Aprendizaje situado: Creación y modificación de prácticas sociales en el espacio público
urbano [Situated learning: Creation and modification of social practices in urban public space]. Psicologia
& Sociedade, 22(1), 130–138.
*Pavanelli, S., Leite, F., & Tourinho, E. (2014). A Bmodelagem^ de contingências comportamentais
entrelaçadas complexas [The shaping of complex interlocking behavioral contingencies]. Acta
Comportamentalia, 22(4), 425–440.
Pedalino, E., & Gamboa, V. U. (1993). Behavior modification and absenteeism: Intervention in one industrial
setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 694–698. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037505.
*Pennypacker, H. S. (2004). Complexity and selection: A template for nation-building. Behavior and Social
Issues, 13, 134–135. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v13i2.22.
*Rakos, R. F. (1991). Perestroika, glasnost, and international cooperation: A behavior analysis. Behavior and
Social Issues, 1(1), 91–100. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v1i1.192.
*Reimer, D., & Houmanfar, R. (2017). Internalities and their applicability for organizational practices. Journal
of Organizational Behavior Management, 37(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2016.1257969.
*Robertson, D., & Pelaez, M. (2016). Behavior analytic concepts and change in a large metropolitan research
university: The graduation success initiative. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 36(2–3),
123–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2016.1200513.
*Rumph, R., Ninness, C., McCuller, G., Holland, J., Ward, T., & Wilbourn, T. (2007). The "shame of
American education" redux. Behavior and Social Issues, 16, 27–41. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v16
i1.399.
Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. New York: Barnes & Noble Books.
*Salzinger, K. (2004). Life is complicated; analysis should be simple. Behavior and Social Issues, 13, 140–
142. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v13i2.24.
*Sampaio, A., Araújo, L., Gonçalo, M., Ferraz, J., Filho, A., Brito, I., Barros, I., & Calado, J. (2013).
Exploring the role of verbal behavior in a new experimental task for the study of metacontingencies.
*Sampaio, A., & Leite, F. (2015). O estudo da cultura pela análise do comportamento e a obra de Sigrid Glenn
[The study of culture in behavior analysis and the work of Sigrid Glenn]. Revista Brasileira de Análise do
Comportamento, 11(2), 203–207. https://doi.org/10.18542/rebac.v11i2.4014
*Sampaio, A., Ottoni, E., & Benvenuti, M. (2015). A análise do comportamento no contexto do estudo
evolucionista do comportamento social e da cultura [Behavior analysis in the context of the evolutionary
study of social behavior and culture]. Estudos de Psicologia, 20(3), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.5935
/1678-4669.20150015
*Sandaker, I. (2004). Commentary on complexity and selection. Behavior and Social Issues, 13, 145.
*Sandaker, I. (2006). How should behavior analysis interact effectively with the social sciences? Behavior and
*Sandaker, I. (2009). A selectionist perspective on systemic and behavioral change in organizations. Journal
of Organizational Behavior Management, 29, 276–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608060903092128.
*Sandaker, I. (2010). Some comments on BEmergence and metacontingency^. Behavior and Social Issues, 19,
Skinner, B. F. (1945). The operational analysis of psychological terms. The Psychological Review, 52(1), 270–
277, 291-294. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062535.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Skinner, B. F. (1959). Animal research in the pharmacotherapy of mental disease. In J. Cole & R. Gerard
(Eds.), Psychopharmacology: Problems in evaluation (pp. 224–238). Washington, DC: National
Academy of Sciences, National Research Council.
Skinner, B. F. (1961). The design of cultures. In B. F. Skinner (Ed.), Cumulative record: A selection of papers
(2nd. ed., pp. 36.01–36.12). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Skinner, B. F. (1965). Science and human behavior. New York: The Free Press. (Original work
published 1953).
Skinner, B. F. (1966). What is the experimental analysis of behavior? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 9(3), 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1966.9-213.
Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts.
Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Skinner, B. F. (1979). The shaping of a behaviorist: Part two of an autobiography. New York: Alfred
A. Knopf.
Skinner, B. F. (1981). Selection by consequences. Science, 213(4507), 501–504. http://10.0.4.102
/science.7244649.
Skinner, B. F. (1986). What is wrong with daily life in the western world? American Psychologist, 41(5), 568–
574. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.5.568.
Skinner, B. F. (1987). Why we are not acting to save the world. In B. F. Skinner (Ed.), Upon further reflection
(pp. 1–14). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, INC..
Skinner, B. F. (1988). Comments. In A. C. Catania & S. Harnad (Eds.), The selection of behavior: The operant
behaviorism of B. F. Skinner: Comments and consequences. New York: Cambridge University Press
(Original work published 1984).
*Smith, G., Houmanfar, R., & Louis, S. (2011). The participatory role of verbal behavior in an elaborated
account of metacontingency: From conceptualization to investigation. Behavior and Social Issues, 20,
Smith, L. D. (1992). On prediction and control: B. F. Skinner and the technological ideal of science. American
Psychologist, 47(2), 216–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.47.2.216.
*Soares, P. Cabral, P., Leite, F., & Tourinho, E. Z. (2012). Efeitos de consequências culturais sobre a seleção e
manutenção de duas práticas culturais alternadas [Effects of cultural consequences on the selection and
maintenance of two alternated cultural practices]. Revista Brasileira de Análise do Comportamento, 8(1),
*Soares, P., Martins, J., Leite, F., & Tourinho, E. Z. (2015). Seleção de contingências comportamentais
entrelaçadas por consequências culturais intermitentes [Selection of interlocking behavioral contingencies
by intermittent cultural consequences]. Revista Brasileira de Análise do Comportamento, 11(2), 117–124.
https://doi.org/10.18542/rebac.v11i2.3780
*Tadaiesky, L. T., & Tourinho, E. Z. (2012). Effects of support consequences and cultural consequences on the
selection of interlocking behavioral contingencies. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 44(1), 87–95.
*Todorov, J. C. (1987). A constituição como metacontingência [The constitution as a metacontingency].
Psicologia: Ciência e Profissão, 7(1), 9–13. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1414-98931987000100003
*Todorov, J. C. (2005). Laws and the complex control of behavior. Behavior and Social Issues, 14, 86–91.
*Todorov, J. C. (2006). The metacontingency as a conceptual tool. Behavior and Social Issues, 15, 92–94.
*Todorov, J. C. (2009). Behavioral analysis of non-experimental data associated with cultural practices.
*Todorov, J. C. (2010). Schedules of cultural selection: Comments on BEmergence and metacontingency^.
*Todorov, J. C. (2012). Contingências de seleção cultural [Contingencies of cultural selection]. Revista
*Todorov, J. C. (2013). Conservation and transformation of cultural practices through contingencies and
metacontingencies. Behavior and Social Issues, 22, 64–73. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v22i0.4812.
*Todorov, J. C., & Moreira, M. (2004). Análise experimental do comportamento e sociedade: Um novo foco
de estudo [Experimental analysis of behavior and society: A new field of investigation]. Psicologia:
Reflexão e Crítica, 17(1), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-79722004000100005
*Toledo, T., & Benvenuti, M. (2015). Efeitos da exigência de desempenhos entrelaçados sobre linha de base
em esquema simples de reforço [Effects of a demand for interlocking performances over baseline in
simple schedules of reinforcement]. Revista Brasileira de Análise do Comportamento, 11(2), 184–194.
https://doi.org/10.18542/rebac.v11i2.1971
*Tourinho, E. Z. (2012). O pensar: comportamento social e práticas culturais [Thinking: Social behavior and
cultural practices]. Acta Comportamentalia, 20, 96–110.
*Tourinho, E. Z. (2013). Cultural consequences and interlocking behavioral contingencies: Selection at the
cultural level. Behavior and Philosophy, 41, 60–69.
*Tourinho, E. Z., & Vichi, C. (2012). Behavioral-analytic research of cultural selection and the complexity of
cultural phenomena. Revista Latioamericana de Psicología, 44(1), 169–179.
*Ulman, J. (2004). Institutions and macrocontingencies: Comments on Glenn and Malott’s BComplexity and
selection^. Behavior and Social Issues, 13, 147–151. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v13i2.28.
*Valderrama, B. P. B., López-López, W., & Gómez, M. N. (2003). El análisis del comportamiento en los temas
sociales: Una propuesta para una cultura en paz [Behavior analysis and social themes: A proposal for a
peace culture]. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 35(3), 299–316.
*Vandenberghe, L. (2008). Culture-sensitive functional analytic psychotherapy. The Behavior Analyst, 31(1),
67–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392162.
*Vasconcelos, I., & Todorov, J. C. (2015). Experimental analysis of the behavior of persons in groups:
Selection of an aggregate product in a metacontingency. Behavior and Social Issues, 24, 111–125.
*Velasco, S., Benvenuti, M., & Tomanari, G. (2012). Metacontingencies, experimentation and nonhumans:
Searching for conceptual and methodological advances. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 44(1),
25–34.
Velasco, S. M., Benvenuti, M. F. L., Sampaio, A. A. S., & Tomanari, G. Y. (2017). Cooperation and
metacontingency in pigeons. The Psychological Record, 67(4), 537–545. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s40732-017-0256-x.
*Vichi, C., Andery, M. A. P. A., & Glenn, S. (2009). A metacontingency experiment: The effects of contingent
consequences on patterns of interlocking contingencies of reinforcement. Behavior and Social Issues, 18,
*Vichi, C., & Tourinho, E. Z. (2012). Consequências culturais x consequências comportamentais na literatura
experimental de pequenos grupos [Cultural consequences X behavioral consequences in small groups'
experimental literature]. Acta Comportamentalia, 20(2), 201–2015.
*Vieira, M., Andery, M. A. P. A., & Pessoa, C. (2016). Condições antecedentes em metacontingências
[Antecedent conditions in metacontingencies]. Acta Comportamentalia, 24(4), 439–451.
*Ward, T. (2009). Piracy in Somalia: Interbehavioral assessment and intervention. Behavior and Social Issues,
18, 126–154. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v18i1.2497.
Wiggins, J. A. (1969). Status differentiation, external consequences, and alternative reward distributions. In R.
L. Burgess & D. Bushell Jr. (Eds.), Behavioral sociology: The experimental analysis of social process (pp.
109–126). New York: Columbia University Press.
*Wilhite, C., & Houmanfar, R. (2015). Mass news media and American culture: An interdisciplinary
approach. Behavior and Social Issues, 24, 88–110. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v24i0.5004.
Zilio, D. (2016). Selecionismo, metáforas e práticas culturais: Haveria um terceiro tipo de seleção no nível
cultural? [Selectionism, metaphors and cultural practices: Would there be a third kind of selection at the
cultural level]. Interação em Psicologia, 20(3), 268–278. https://doi.org/10.5380/psi.v20i3.47398.
Zilio, D. (2019) O que nos torna analistas do comportamento? A teoria Como elemento integrador [What
makes us behavior analysts? The theory as the integrating factor]. Acta Comportamentalia.

Zilio (2019) On The Function of Science

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zilio (2019) On The Function of Science

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zilio (2019) On The Function of Science

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Behavior and Social Issues

On the Function of Science: an Overview of 30 Years

# Association for Behavior Analysis International 2019

Keywords Behavior analysis . Contingency . Cultural practices . Culture . Effective action .

…the notion of emergence has been used to describe interrelations of events

However, the connection between philosophical assumptions regarding reductionism

The Criterion of Effective Action

Discussions about effectiveness of a concept make sense only in a broader context

the probably of having a certain disease (aversive situation) by developing appropriate

Therefore, scientific concepts should be evaluated considering their role in promoting

A bibliography selection was conducted across 16 journals known for publishing

Table 1 Journals and databases reviewed

Journal Abbreviation Period

1 Acta Comportamentalia AC 1993–2016

Classification by Thematic Categories

Theoretical Articles focused on conceptual/philosophical issues regarding the

2. Theoretical Ramifications Articles that focused on theoretical/philosophical issues

Interpretative For Skinner (1988), to interpret is to provide a sense of understanding

Organization and Analysis

Distribution Among Thematic Categories

Table 2 shows the distribution of articles among each category.

Table 2 Distribution of articles among categories

Categories Total Articles ordered by date of publication

Distribution Among Journals

Theoretical Interpretative Experimental Applied

Total Applied Experimental Interpretative Theoretical

Seven journals had five or more publications on the metacontingency. Acta

Principal Researchers and Centers Studying the Metacontingency

Table 3 Distribution of articles in each category by author affiliations

Affiliations Categories Total

Theoretical Interpretative Experimental Applied

University of North Texas † 16 3 6 25

In Search of a Common Definition

If the selection of cultural practices is to be considered a 'third kind of selection'. .

Glenn (1988) proceeded to redefine the metacontingency as Bthe unit of analysis

In organizations, metacontingencies have three components: interlocking behav-

In April, 2015, a group of 12 behaviorists was convened in Sāo Paulo by João

Finally, they defined the metacontingency as Ba contingent relation between 1)

Experiments on the Metacontingency

Wiggins’ experiment may be viewed as manipulating metacontingencies to show

The Metacontingency in Applied Research

This study concerns a change in metacontingencies that included the costs of

Langeland et al. (1998) described an intervention aimed to improve staff performance in a

Robertson and Pelaez (2016) described an intervention in a university setting Bby

Criticisms on the Metacontingency

The key, it seems to me, to gaining an understanding of an organization is to

The majority of articles related to the metacontingency are theoretical or interpretative

metacontingency by its usefulness in interpretation. Skinner argues that we gain an

Compliance with Ethical Standards

*Andery, M. A. P. A. (2011). Comportamento e cultura na perspectiva da análise do comportamento [Behavior

Andery, M. A. P. A., & Sério, T. M. A. P. (2005). O conceito de metacontingências: Afinal, a velha

bonfire]. Perspectivas em Análise do Comportamento, 8(1), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.18761

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.