As I was studying for my Behavior Analysis final tonight, I read some interesting material that gave me some insight as to why society, in general, has a hard time changing its customary traditions and accepting gay marriage. It all has to do with metacontingencies.
Before I go any further, I want to cite the textbook from which I am borrowing information:
Pierce, W. D., & Cheney, C. (2008) Behavior Analysis and Learning. Great Britain: Psychology Press.
In addition, I will provided in-text notations regarding the page numbers on which I found the information.
First, in order to understand what a metacontingency is, one must understand what a contingency is in regards to the study of behavior. A contingency "defines the relationship between the [environment], the operant [a willful behavior], and the consequences that follow the behavior" (344). So, in other words, an environment or situation sets the occasion for a behavior to be willed, with positive or negative consequences following. These consequences influence whether the individual will emit (will) the particular behavior in the future.
Does that make sense?
So, a metacontingency describes "the contingent relations among cultural practices and the effects of those practices for the group" (354). Therefore, a metacontingency describes a contingency of behavior on a cultural level rather than on an individual level (which a contingency describes).
A further example, as provided by the text:
"A culture is said to be evolved when the community adopts these innovations. Adoption of innovations depends on the metacontingencies facing the group. For example, a new food crop with higher yield is selected when the metacontingencies favor increased grain production. This could occur when a community is impoverished or when higher yielding crops support the feeding of domestic animals used for work or consumption. Higher yield crops may not be selected when food is overly abundant, when increased grain supply leads to problems of storage, or when a new crop attracts pests that spread disease" (337).
In other words, our behavior as individuals, families, societies is influenced by its consequences. If a behavior or practice will produce a benefit, then we are more likely to emit this behavior than if the consequences were neutral or negative.
It is with this premise that I present a new approach to establish gay marriage as an option throughout this country: we must give society a reason to not just want gay marriage, but to need it. The bottom line is that society will change with its circumstances - just look at the current recession. Would the Bush and Obama administrations have bailed out companies if there were no benefits (that may be real or perceived)? If there was not economic worry, these administrations would not have bailed out anybody. And if these bailouts do not work, then future administrations will be more likely to refuse the bailing-out of companies.
At the end of the day, those who are against gay marriage don't see any benefit for themselves. In fact, most don't even see the issue's consequences as neutral - they see them as negative and harmful. It is our job to illustrate to them the benefits that gay marriage will bring to them as individuals, as families, and as an American society. Now, I believe that there are indeed some benefits to legalizing gay marriage, but that is not the issue. Even if those benefits are only perceived by society, then they will be more accepting of gay marriage. Now, I'm not advocating that we lie to them or promote a false agenda; all I am saying is that we need to get them to become more comfortable in other ways, such as being more willing to even discuss the issue rather than ignore it or shut it down.
That is why "coming out" is (in my opinion) the most effective way to win sympathy for us as individuals and as a group, as well as the most effective way to win votes for gay marriage. In behavioral psychology terms, this is because their contingencies have changed. They no longer feel innocent for voting against gay marriage because now they know people on a personal level who will be directly affected by their votes. The process of "coming out" by one person sets the occasion for the listeners (a.k.a. friends and family) to emit a different behavior (vote for gay marriage), which will be followed by consequences (which may vary due to many factors).
This is supported (I believe) by further passages from the text:
"A common observation is that cultural practices in humans often remain unchanged over many generations, even when these customs make no sense. A practice may persist for many years because the members of the group who engage in it fail to contact a change in the metacontingencies. At the individual level, a person [obeys]... the taboo because the social contingencies arranged by the group [for disobeying the taboo] avert contact with the positive reinforcement contingency. Cultural practices also may persist when the metacontingencies are stable and the current practices are sufficient to meet the contingencies" (337-8).
In other words, if circumstances don't change, then people and society will never change. People stick to tradition (opposing gay marriage) because not doing so will produce negative consequences (administered by their families, friends, churches, etc...).
Calls for change challenge individuals to really consider what they need and what society needs. So it is not just our job to challenge on an individual level but on a societal level as well. We need to make the consequences for supporting gay marriage positive for the individual and for society. Only then will people be willing to accept us and realize that we have rights as divine creatures. After all, people will only do something if there is some benefit (short- or long-term) to themselves; if there is nothing of personal benefit for supporting gay marriage, then people will not support it. Support can be defined in any way the individual perceives; it can be intrinsically motivated ("I feel good when I value my fellow citizens with equality") or it can be extrinsically motivated ("It will encourage American acceptance abroad"). The point is that we must stress the positive consequences for individuals and societies who support gay marriage. Only then will we win our rightful cause.
Remember Remember
8 years ago
