Positive Feedback Loops of Metacontingencies: A New Conceptualization of Cultural-Level Selection

Abstract

Couto and Sandaker (2016) proposed two complementary processes, selection of cultures and cultural-selection, as successors to the metacontingency in the process of cultural-level selection. They argued that the selective processes in the metacontingency were limited to within-groups selection, and might be included in the discussion pertaining to the selection of cultural practices. Further, they argued that the selection processes outlined in the metacontingency model failed to address the selection of cultural-social environments, which they suggested might result in the selection of between cultures, or between groups, features and would be more in line with the third level of selection processes which Skinner (1981; described as resulting in the evolution of cultures. This article incorporates an understanding of feedback from systems theory that is broader than the common application of the concept in the field of behavior analysis, and considers several examples that illustrate how positive-feedback loops between multiple metacontingencies may result in the between-groups, cultural-level selective processes described by Couto and Sandaker, and how such systems may emerge via processes of self-organization. KEYWORDS: cultural-level selection; cultural-selection; emergence; metacontingency; selection of cultures; self-organization Since the time of Darwin (1859), processes of selection have been integrated into a number of theories addressing processes of change in the world around us. Skinner (1981) suggested that there were three fundamental levels of selection by consequences. These levels were natural selection, which operates at the biological level; operant selection, which operates at the behavioral level; and cultural selection, which Skinner asserted operates at the anthropological level. Skinner (1953;1981;1989) believed that a "third kind" of selection by consequences (1953, p. 430; 1981, p. 502) resulted in the evolution of social environments or cultures.Even though the first two levels are relatively well-understood at this point, the processes operating at the third, cultural level remain somewhat elusive to attempts at definition. Dawkins (1984), in seeking to understand the parallels between the various levels of selection by consequences, pointed out that natural selection clearly defines both the replicator involved, and the consequences that are produced by the replicator. The replicators in the process are the genes; they are both the entity that is capable of forming a lineage across multiple generations of a species and the entity that is selected in natural selection. The consequences produced by the genes are the phenotypes that result in the various traits exhibited by the organism and by which the replicator is selected. He argued that, at the level of the evolution of cultures, Skinner (1981) was not clear 1 The author may be reached at jvkrispin@valdosta.edu.

Editorial: Emerging Cultural and Behavioral Systems Science

“…Krispin (this issue) discusses cultural selection, selection of cultures, and the metacontingency in the context of the dynamics of self-organizing systems. Extending the conceptualization first formulated by Skinner (1981) and later expanded by Couto and Sandaker (2016) and Krispin (2016Krispin ( , 2017, here Krispin (this issue) describes the implications of adopting these processes as those critical to the selection of cultures. His formulation suggests that the metacontingency accounts for withingroup processes of selection.…”

“…However, it is less common to see an analysis of the verbal behavior emitted in experimental work even if the role of communication has been emphasized in a subset of the literature emphasizing effective leadership practices (see Houmanfar and Mattaini 2018). In addition, the integration of systems and selection principles has yielded a reasonable amount of attention from cultural and behavioral systems scientists (e.g., Glenn and Malott 2004;Krispin 2017;Mattaini 2004;Sandaker 2009) but largely at the conceptual level. Both topics underscore the need for additional empirical work to untangle the complexity and further refine the important concepts and processes in cultural and behavioral systems science.…”

“…Preceded by the inaugural issue of the Behaviorists for Social Action (first pubslihed in 1978) journal (now Behavior and Social Issues) and perhaps accelerated by Glenn's (1986) first conceptualization of the metacontingency, behavior scientists began to publish a number of theoretical and conceptual accounts of Skinner's (1981) third kind of selection (i.e., cultural selection; see, for example, Advancing Cultural Analytic Science 2006) as well as applying the concepts put forth in interpretations of social and cultural issues (e.g., Lamal 1991Lamal , 1997Mattaini and Thyer 1996). There was (and still is) much discourse regarding the appropriateness of pushing the boundaries of operant selection to that of cultural selection, the need for new units of analysis or basic processes to understand cultural phenomena (Marr 2006;Mattaini 2006; also see Zilio 2019, for a recent critical review), the critical and variable features of what these units and processes might include (e.g., Glenn et al 2016;Houmanfar et al 2010), as well as what units and processes are at play (e.g., systems principles or selection, differentiating between cultural selection and the selection of cultures; Couto and Sandaker 2016;Krispin 2016Krispin , 2017.…”

A Complexity Perspective on Parent–Teacher Collaboration in Special Education: Narratives from the Field in Lebanon

“…In the case of organizations such as schools, this involves positive feedback loops that amplify the outcomes of small disturbances facilitating the emergence of changes. In systems of human organization, this involves patterns of interactions that enable the emergence of novelty [13][14][15].…”

“…These interaction patterns are "neither random nor completely structured" [12] (p. 63). In other words, beyond formal structures, the organization has its structures of interactions that have emergent patterns [12,13]. For Sandaker [17], a CAS "allows a 'web of influence, i.e., facilitating variation in interaction independently of divisions, departments or levels of administration" (p. 277).…”