- Email: [email protected]
Contingency contracting with couples: Redundancy and caution
BEHAVIOR THERAPY 9, 679 (1978)
Contingency Contracting with Couples: Redundancy and Caution In the recent proliferation of articles on behavioral marital therapy, contingency contracting has emerged as a popular procedure. Its advocates believe that the written specification of "rewards" for compliance with a change agreement (and "punishment" for noncompliance) is often necessary for the establishment of positive changes. A stimulus control model of change in behavioral marriage therapy (N. S. Jacobson, A stimulus control model of change in behavioral marital therapy: Implications for contingency contracting. Journal of Marriage and Family Counseling, in press) predicts that the critical determinants of whether or not an agreement is upheld are the conditions under which it was negotiated. If couples negotiate a solution to one of their problems efficiently, and in a reinforcing manner, the agreement is more likely to endure than one which is reached subsequent to a good deal of verbal punishment. In most cases, the stimuli specified as the consequences are of minor importance. This is not to minimize the importance of the consequences per se, but simply those specified in the contract. The negotiating process generates its own consequences, which are often cognitive in nature (e.g., "I will be making Ann happy by doing this."). These might function as reinforcers, or they may act as further cues, placing the spouse in touch with long-term contingencies. Moreover, in marital therapy partners often implement many changes simultaneously. These changes often serve to reinforce one another in inadvertent quid pro quos. Thus, it is usually unnecessary to specify "rewards" and "'punishments" in behavior change agreements. Moreover, such stimuli are not usually effective as reinforcers. For one thing, the stimuli which function effectively as reinforcers in a marriage are difficult to present discretely and on demand; there are data to suggest that the real reinforcers in most marriages involve manifestations of caring, concern, and love; it is doubtful whether the typical reinforcers in written contracts (backrubs, money, saying "thank you") are sufficiently powerful to maintain behavior change. In addition, there is a danger that the mere act of writing stimuli into a contract may eliminate their potency. For example, "hugging" will serve as a reinforcer in some situations and not in others, depending on, among other things, the inferences drawn by the receiver as to the giver's intent. If the receiver infers that the partner is hugging because "he cares," hugging will serve as a reinforcer; however, if the attribution on the part of the receiver changes, that is, if an alternative, more plausible explanation for the hugging is available, the act may be ineffective as a reinforcer. Attempting to use this behavior in a contract may be fruitless since the receiver is unlikely to view it as internally motivated. If the above is true, one might predict, first, that contingency contracting will add little to a comprehensive behavioral treatment program for couples. Second, the tendency for a change agreement to be upheld should be highly correlated with the quality of the problemsolving session which produced it and relatively independent of the use (or lack thereof) of specified "rewards" and "punishments." N E I L S. JACOBSON
Department of Psychology University of Iowa Iowa City, IA 52242 An extended report is available from the author. RECEIVED: October 10, 1976; REVISED AND FINAL ACCEPTANCE: June 22, 1978 679 0005-7894/78/0094-0679501.00/0 Copyright© 1978by Associationfor Advancementof BehaviorTherapy. All rightsof reproductionin any formreserved.
Contingency Contracting with Couples: Redundancy and Caution In the recent proliferation of articles on behavioral marital therapy, contingency contracting has emerged as a popular procedure. Its advocates believe that the written specification of "rewards" for compliance with a change agreement (and "punishment" for noncompliance) is often necessary for the establishment of positive changes. A stimulus control model of change in behavioral marriage therapy (N. S. Jacobson, A stimulus control model of change in behavioral marital therapy: Implications for contingency contracting. Journal of Marriage and Family Counseling, in press) predicts that the critical determinants of whether or not an agreement is upheld are the conditions under which it was negotiated. If couples negotiate a solution to one of their problems efficiently, and in a reinforcing manner, the agreement is more likely to endure than one which is reached subsequent to a good deal of verbal punishment. In most cases, the stimuli specified as the consequences are of minor importance. This is not to minimize the importance of the consequences per se, but simply those specified in the contract. The negotiating process generates its own consequences, which are often cognitive in nature (e.g., "I will be making Ann happy by doing this."). These might function as reinforcers, or they may act as further cues, placing the spouse in touch with long-term contingencies. Moreover, in marital therapy partners often implement many changes simultaneously. These changes often serve to reinforce one another in inadvertent quid pro quos. Thus, it is usually unnecessary to specify "rewards" and "'punishments" in behavior change agreements. Moreover, such stimuli are not usually effective as reinforcers. For one thing, the stimuli which function effectively as reinforcers in a marriage are difficult to present discretely and on demand; there are data to suggest that the real reinforcers in most marriages involve manifestations of caring, concern, and love; it is doubtful whether the typical reinforcers in written contracts (backrubs, money, saying "thank you") are sufficiently powerful to maintain behavior change. In addition, there is a danger that the mere act of writing stimuli into a contract may eliminate their potency. For example, "hugging" will serve as a reinforcer in some situations and not in others, depending on, among other things, the inferences drawn by the receiver as to the giver's intent. If the receiver infers that the partner is hugging because "he cares," hugging will serve as a reinforcer; however, if the attribution on the part of the receiver changes, that is, if an alternative, more plausible explanation for the hugging is available, the act may be ineffective as a reinforcer. Attempting to use this behavior in a contract may be fruitless since the receiver is unlikely to view it as internally motivated. If the above is true, one might predict, first, that contingency contracting will add little to a comprehensive behavioral treatment program for couples. Second, the tendency for a change agreement to be upheld should be highly correlated with the quality of the problemsolving session which produced it and relatively independent of the use (or lack thereof) of specified "rewards" and "punishments." N E I L S. JACOBSON
Department of Psychology University of Iowa Iowa City, IA 52242 An extended report is available from the author. RECEIVED: October 10, 1976; REVISED AND FINAL ACCEPTANCE: June 22, 1978 679 0005-7894/78/0094-0679501.00/0 Copyright© 1978by Associationfor Advancementof BehaviorTherapy. All rightsof reproductionin any formreserved.