Elaborating the Three-Term Contingency

The BPM elaborates on and is used in lieu of the three-term contingency as an analytical device to interpret behaviour that is not amenable to an EAB.

The framework is specifically constructed to account for what Foxall (1990, 1996b, 1997b, 1999c, 2010b) classes as fundamental weaknesses of the EAB, namely, (1) the limitations of non-human experiments in elucidating the

peculiarities of human behaviour which principally arise from our capacity to engage in verbal behaviour coupled with the implications of that capacity, and,

195 Penrose (1959) highlights the point that Wroe Alderson (and colleague) made in the early 1950s: “it is essential to distinguish between what the economist has called the elasticity of demand and the more fundamental factor of plasticity” (sic) (p. 72). Penrose affirms that non-price elements within the repertoire of the firm are fundamental to “the remolding of demand.”

Through this reference, therefore, Penrose criticises economists for focusing only on the price elements and relegating other elements to the realm of marketing analysis. Foxall and Schrezenmaier (2003) pick on Penrose’s (1959) statement to call for research within the operant paradigm that utilises price and non-price marketing variables to probe the combined effects on consumer behaviour.

(2) the differences that arise between responses emitted in an experimental laboratory and behaviour within a natural setting and associated implications¹⁹⁶.

Although the BPM is a selectionist interpretation (Foxall 2010c)

presuming Selection by Consequences (Foxall 1996b, 2010b), the framework has not yet been applied to generate evolutionary interpretations of consumer (Nicholson and Xiao 2010) and firm behaviour.

Section 4.2.1 discusses the three cardinal departures of the BPM from behaviourist orthodoxy: (1) the nature of reinforcement among humans (Section 4.2.1A), (2) the nature of real world settings (Section 4.2.1B), and, (3) the role of private verbal behaviour (Section 4.2.1C). Although the BPM does assume continuity of operant principles, the primary emphasis is on these three

departures: first, to account for those situations where the generalisation of the results obtained in EAB to real world behaviour may fall short; and, second, as an on-going examination of the scope and limits of such generalisation through valid and reliable systematic interpretation and empirical research. The BPM relies both on the evidence generated through the study of human operant behaviour (Foxall 1993c) and on the evidence that the CBA has generated¹⁹⁷. Instead of rejecting the EAB outright or simply assuming complete continuity, the BPM offers a mode for interpreting behaviour systematically and rigorously within a radical behaviourist philosophy via the principles of operant

psychology. Section 4.2.2 details the variables of the BPM in application to purchase and consumption.

A. The Bifurcation of Reinforcement

Non-human animal experiments provide very limited insight into the situational influences of human behaviour (e.g., Foxall 1990, 1993c, 1994,

196 For a complete account of the theoretical development of the BPM and the role of

interpretation see (Foxall 1990), (Foxall 1992a), (Foxall 1992b), (Foxall 1993c), (Foxall 1993a), (Foxall 1994), (Foxall 1995c), (Foxall 1997b), (Foxall 1998b), (Fagerstrøm et al. 2010), and, (Foxall 2010b). Foxall (1996a) provides an overview of the initial years of theoretical and conceptual development. Appendix A4.1 presents an overview of the CBA research programme associated with the use and application the BPM in research on consumer and marketer behaviour.

197 Empirical work on the BPM appeared first in 1997: see Foxall (1997a). For a selection of empirical work produced within the BPM research programme see Foxall (2005, 2010c), Foxall et al. (2007), Foxall and Sigurdsson (2013), Vella and Foxall (2011), Yan et al. (2012a, 2012b), and Yani-De-Soriano et al. (2013).

2001). Given the human susceptibility to operant conditioning and that verbal behaviour is uniquely human, then surely some reinforcers and punishers may be particular only to humans (Wearden 1988). For example, the reinforcing and punishing consequences associated with conducting literal exchange

transactions and receiving praise from others. This consideration holds implications on the nature of reinforcement among humans and gives rise to conceptualising utilitarian and informational sources of rewards and punishment within the BPM (e.g., Foxall 1990, 1993c, a, 1996b, 1997b, 1998b, 2005;

2010b; cf. Kollins et al. 1997)¹⁹⁸.

Utilitarian reinforcement and punishment relates to the positive and negative consequences of consumer behaviour mediated by the direct usable, economic, and technical benefits of a product and its cost (generally associated with contingency shaped behaviour) (Foxall 1997b, 2005, 2010b; Vella and Foxall 2011; Yan et al. 2012a). This form of reinforcement is operationally defined in terms of incentives, practical outcomes, functional or instrumental benefits, and costs as positive and negative utilitarian reinforcers and punishers (Vella and Foxall 2011).

Behaviour also generates informational consequences or outcomes relating to verbal feedback on performance and on accomplishment and is usually mediated by the behaviour of others. Informational reinforcement and punishment (generally associated with rule governed behaviour) is operationally defined as a process which regulates the rate of future emissions through

positive and negative feedback on performance, on level of achievement, and on the accuracy of such performance respectively (Foxall 1996b, 1997b, 2005, 2010b; Vella and Foxall 2011, 2013). Therefore, informational reinforcement contributes to resolving the problems posed by the prevailing nexus of

contingencies more effectively by providing individuals with the necessary feedback on the appropriateness and accuracy of their performance. The

feedback is expressed in terms of the appropriateness of behaviour with respect to the generation of utilitarian outcomes of purchase and consumption and in

198 A recurring theme in Foxall’s work relates to the differences between human and non-human animals which he calls the problem of “speciational discontinuity” with specific focus on verbal behaviour, the proposed solution within the BPM of the bifurcation of reinforcement (Foxall 1995c, pp. 32-33, 36-39; 1998b, pp. 327-333), and later hypothesizing symbolic aspects of reinforcement as distinct from feedback on performance (Foxall 2013).

terms of such social outcomes as status and prestige (Foxall 1997b, 2010b).

Utilitarian reinforcement is considered of similar character to “value in use” or functional properties of the product class and the brand, and

informational reinforcement is considered of similar character to “exchange value” as feedback on the performance and accomplishments of the individual’s behaviour as a consumer (Foxall 1997b, 2005, 2010b; Yan et al. 2012b)¹⁹⁹. Reinforcement is also understood in terms of combinations or configurations or patterns that exert relatively low to relatively high levels of control over

behaviour.

The bifurcation of reinforcement is a fundamental contention of the BPM as utilitarian and informational reinforcers and punishers are posited as strong environmental consequences that act independently and in combination within a situation to occasion consumer behaviour (Foxall 1990, 1992b, 1993c, 1995c, 1997b, 1998b, 2005, 2010b; Vella and Foxall 2011; Yan et al. 2012a; Yani-De-Soriano et al. 2013). Empirical research repeatedly shows that both sources of reinforcement are influential in the determination of consumer purchase

behaviour (Yan et al. 2012a)²⁰⁰.

199 It has been suggested that ultimately the power of informational reinforcement on consumer behaviour derives from such reinforcers being repeatedly paired with utilitarian consequences of behaviour (Foxall 1994, 1997b). Utilitarian reinforcement is largely related to the satisfaction of biological contingencies whereas informational reinforcement satisfies non-biological

contingencies and is usually mediated by other people (Foxall 1997b; Yan et al. 2012b). Such an explanation would account for why consumer behaviour appears to be a function of patterns of reinforcement that combine both utilitarian and informational rewards (Foxall et al. 2006) to the extent that such reinforcement has the greatest effect on consumer behaviour when applied in combination (Foxall 1996b).

200 In contrast, the nature of reinforcement is not explored within the EAB beyond its response strengthening or weakening effects. Skinner seems to classify all sources of reinforcement as being, ultimately, instrumental or utilitarian. In his treatment of culture, for example, Skinner ignores the possibility that social reinforcement might have non-instrumental consequences that may strengthen and weaken behaviour and that may also effect such dimensions as the

replication of practices within the group (see, for example, Skinner 1966a, 1969, 1971, 1981, 1984h). Applied operant research recognizes several verbal and social influences as possible reinforcers and punishers effecting human behaviour. Such influences include: (a) the

instructional dimensions of goal setting (Arnold and Van Houten 2011), task clarification (Crowell et al. 1988), and prompting (Cooper et al. 2007, pp. 401-403; Arnold and Van Houten 2011), (b) feedback in terms of a verbal or non-verbal descriptions of some aspect performance and, as a consequence of behaviour (Crowell et al. 1988; Cooper et al. 2007, pp. 262-263;

Rantz et al. 2009); and, (c) social reinforcers such as contingent praise (Crowell et al. 1988;

Cooper et al. 2007; Pierce and Cheney 2008). (The selection of publications provided here is not exhaustive.) However, unlike Foxall, none seem to explicitly recognise these consequences of behaviour as independent and separate from instrumental consequences. At worst, Foxall’s approach seems to instil a more fine-grained approach to the reinforcing and punishing

consequences of human operant behaviour.

B. The Scope of Behaviour Settings

Clearly laboratory settings are significantly more restrictive than natural ones (e.g., Foxall 1990, 1994, 1996b, 2005, 2010b): consider the differences between the sources of simulation within a controlled experiment and those found within a single aisle in a supermarket. On the one hand, a laboratory is a significantly contrived setting where antecedent and consequential stimuli are purposely limited to a few (or even one) and are almost completely controlled by a single researcher (Johnston and Pennypacker 2009). On the other, a

supermarket is characterised by many antecedent and consequential stimuli and in the relative control of several marketers each competing for consumer attention (e.g., Foxall 1990, 1997b, 2010b). These situational variables include different ranges of products, distinctive brands, atmospherics, and so on (e.g., Foxall 1990, 1997b, 2010b; Vella and Foxall 2011).

The BPM assumes that all consumer behaviour may be interpreted in terms of extra-personal influences but recognises the methodological limitations in reliably, objectively, and accurately relating the rate of responding to its actual situational determinants (Foxall 1990, 1993c, 1996b, 2010b). Therefore, the model characterises the range and extent of differences between

experimental and real world contexts by positing a set of antecedent stimuli that define the relative stricture of the behaviour setting scope. In the EAB, the scope reflects the extent to which behaviour may be brought under the contingency control by the experimental researcher. Within operant

interpretations, the scope reflects the extent to which the control of behaviour by extra-personal environmental variables may be established through an accurate and objective specification of the contingencies (Foxall 1990, 1996b, 2010b). Thus, the distinction between the relative scope strictures of behaviour settings may be explained in terms of (a) the relative extent to which the

external environment (i.e., “behaviour modifier” (Schwartz and Lacey 1988) or behaviour modification agent) gains contingency control over an individual’s behaviour, and, (b) the extent to which the individual’s rate of responding may be unambiguously related to extra-personal variables (Foxall 1993c, p. 218).

Generally, the more closed the behaviour setting, the less unambiguous and the more easily identifiable are the extra-personal influences. Conversely, the

more open the behaviour setting, the greater the ambiguity and difficulty in relating behaviour to its situational determinants (Foxall 1992b, 1993c)²⁰¹.

In operationalization, the scope of the setting reflects the extent to which individuals are compelled by situational influences to behave in particular ways and, therefore, behaviour settings are said to vary in the range of emissions available to individuals (Foxall 1999c, 2005, 2010b; Vella and Foxall 2011, 2013). A relatively closed consumer behaviour setting (queuing at the check-in counter in an airport) reflects a limited range of possible behaviours to produce reinforcement (boarding the plane en route to a holiday destination) and relative greater control of the contingencies by others (airport staff, security, and so on).

Further, the greater the degree of control by marketers (and other extra-personal factors) over consumer contingencies, the more predictable consumer behaviour will be (Foxall 1997b, 2005). Thus, purchase and consumption behaviour follows a more stable, more regular, and routinized pattern. From a marketing perspective, this stability reduces environmental uncertainty (Vella and Foxall 2013) and enhances predictability for better planning and more stable revenue and profit streams. Conversely, the more open the behaviour setting, the greater the ambiguity and difficulty in relating behaviour to its situational determinants (Foxall 1992b, 1993c). This implies greater variability and fluctuation in consumer behaviour patterns and related revenue/profit streams as environmental uncertainty increases.

The scope runs along a continuum from relatively closed to relatively open settings.

C. Self-Instruction and Rule Governed Behaviour

The BPM considers a third departure from behaviourist orthodoxy: the possibility that in certain purchase and consumption situations, consumers may

201 Contrast the perspective proposed by the BPM to Skinner’s. The author claims “designing a culture is like designing an experiment” (Skinner 1971, p. 150) since “the difference between contrived and natural conditions is not a serious one” (Skinner 1971, p. 156, emphasis added).

While admittedly Skinner’s cultural design analogy has use in conceptualising strategic

marketing behaviour in terms of the strategies used by experimental researchers to identify and control consequential and signalling operations, his latter claim is implausible not only because it is unqualified but it trivialises the complexity of real world settings.

privately specify rules (summaries of contingencies) which function as

discriminative stimuli and may provide a proximal or immediate explanation of behaviour. Ultimately, however, these verbal stimuli are under external

environmental control (Foxall 1990, 1993a, c, 1994): Although consumer behaviour may be characterised as rule-governed (e.g., following the specifications by marketers of the reinforcement patterns contingent upon purchasing a specific brand over others), ultimately such behaviour is shaped by direct exposure to the contingencies (Foxall 1990, 1993a, c, 1997b,

2010b)²⁰².

4.2.2 Purchase and Consumption in Terms of the BPM Having established the three fundamental departures from the conventional Skinnerian approach to behaviour, this section details the variables of the BPM in application to purchase and consumption.

The BPM characterises real world purchase and consumption behaviours to encompass an entire patterned sequence of pre-purchase, purchase, and post-purchase activities (Foxall 1990, 1996b) (Figure 30).

202 The reasons for this are explained in Chapter 3, Section 3.2.7. Ultimately, from a

behaviourist perspective, the actual environmental consequences of using a particular brand are invoked in explaining consumer purchase and consumption patterns. A consumer may view several adverts on the benefits of drinking Coca Cola. However, until trial the consumer is said to be under the control of verbal stimuli rather than on the environmental consequences of using and consuming Coca Cola in various circumstances. Such environmental consequences may include the removal or weakening of such adverse stimuli as thirst and heat, and the incidence of positive informational rewards such as praise from peers.

Figure 30 – The BPM explains Pre-Purchase, Purchase, and Post-Purchase Consumer Behaviour in Natural Settings

Antecedent spatial or physical (a brand, a planogram, point-of-purchase displays, atmospherics), temporal (opening hours), regulatory (brand

information, mandatory insurance for an automobile) and social (a friendly sales person) events comprise the consumer environment, and thus define the

behaviour setting.

These settings vary in relative scope stricture along a continuum of relatively closed to relatively open (Figure 31). Antecedent scope stimuli reflect the extent to which marketers are able to specify consumer contingencies accurately and unambiguously and, thus, gain a degree of objective control of the possible range of behaviours possible within a particular setting (e.g., Foxall 1990; Foxall 2010b). Relatively closed settings, for example, a retail outlet at a train station that exclusively sells ice cream brands from a given manufacturer, reflect the degree of control marketers have on the ice cream purchase and consumption contingencies of travellers and commuters. Customers wanting an ice cream have little choice – they either purchase the brands on sale or go elsewhere if ice cream is available at other outlets within the station or do without. Consumers may emit alternative escape-avoidance behaviours (e.g., postpone the purchase till later). The range of behaviours available to

consumers widens if the same retail outlet stocked rival brands. Buyers are then able to emit a broader range of choice behaviours among available

brands. In relatively closed settings consumers are found following the patterns of behaviour prescribed (and proscribed) by marketers: the more closed the behaviour setting, the greater the extent to which an individual will be found following closely the patterns of behaviour prescribed by others (Foxall 1997b;

Vella and Foxall 2013).

Figure 31 – The Behaviour Setting Scope

The extent to which behaviour setting scope is relatively open or closed is determined by analysing the environment to establish the parameters defined in (Figure 32)²⁰³.

Any of the various elements of the marketing mix programmed and implemented by marketers may function either as consequential or scope stimuli (Foxall 1990, 1997b, 2010b; Vella and Foxall 2011): Brands within a freezer cabinet set the occasion for utilitarian and informational reinforcement contingent upon purchase and consumption. In parallel, the number of brands and product variety available function as setting scope stimulus events. A cabinet tied exclusively to a particular manufacturer would hold only the brands of that manufacturer thereby constricting the scope of the retail setting.

Stimulus events are presumed neutral and do not acquire the capacity to control behaviour because of their inherent properties. Rather, otherwise neutral stimuli acquire stimulus function in the presence of the learning history of the individual (including cultural contingencies), her genetic endowment (i.e., biological contingencies or contingencies of survival), and, the current state of deprivation and satiation (Foxall 1990, 1992b, 1997b, 2001, 2010b).

203 The figure is based on Foxall (1990, 1992a, 1997b, 2010b) and Vella and Foxall (2011).

See also Appendix A4.2.1.

Figure 32 – Determining the Degree of Stricture of the Behaviour Setting Scope

Besides genetic endowment and states of deprivation, learning history accounts for the single most important representation of the individual in the BPM (Foxall 1994, 2010b)²⁰⁴. The construct refers to the “sum total of … emitted behaviours and their consequences under particular conditions” and

“summarises the cumulative contingencies of reinforcement and punishment under which the individual … has previously behaved” (Foxall 1997b, p. 58).

An individual’s learning history is activated by and primes the behaviour setting (Foxall 1997b): the arrival of the individual with in a particular setting (the salience, presence and absence of stimulation) activates his history. In turn, learning history determines which stimuli achieve discriminative function (which elements are reinforcers and punishers) and which stimuli achieve motivational function (i.e., the salience and effectiveness of the stimuli or the degree to which a consequence is reinforcing or punishing within the particular situation) (Foxall 1992b, 1996b, 1997b; Fagerstrøm et al. 2010; Foxall 2010b).

Learning history represents ‘habit’ or the potential for the continuity of behaviour within sufficiently similar behaviour settings (Foxall 1993b, 1997b, 2010b). Repeated interaction with the environment modifies the learning history of the individual altering the probability of similar emissions being repeated in future (e.g., Foxall 1992a, 2010b).

Learning history, on the one hand (as the central personal variable), and the behaviour setting, on the other (as an environmental or extra personal variable), are the essential components in constructing behaviourist

explanations (Foxall 1995c, a, 1997b, 1998a, b, 1999c, 2005, 2010b). The former denotes the temporal dimension whereas the latter variable marks a spatial dimension (Foxall 1990, 1997b). Learning history provides the basis for understanding the subjective meaning of a consumer’s response within a

particular context of behaviour. What determines this meaning (the reason why

204 Contrasting the various expositions on the BPM that have been proposed over the years, three personal variables are used to characterise consumers, namely, states of deprivation and satiation, learning history, and genetic endowment (Foxall 1992b, 1994). Of these learning history is the single most important and explicit personal variable that impinges directly on consumer behaviour (Foxall 1994). On the other hand, for example, Foxall (1993b), Foxall (1992a), Foxall (1993c), and Foxall (2007a) omits either genetic inheritance or state variables or both. The omission may reflect an implicit assumption of these variables. Alternatively and in the light of Foxall’s emphasis on interpretations (see especially, Foxall 1994, 1995c, 1998b, 1999c, 2001, 2010b), the omission might reflect Foxall’s caution over speculating à la Skinner on the possible genetic factors that influence economic choice behaviour.

an individual acts the way she does within a given context) is the unique interaction of the individual’s history of learning (plus her genetic endowment and state of deprivation and satiation) and the current behaviour setting – this defines the consumer situation (Foxall 1992b, 1995c, a, 1997b, 1998b, a, 1999c, 2005, 2010b)²⁰⁵.

The consumer situation component of the BPM summarises the unique interaction of a particular individual with an otherwise neutral environment – it is the context within which the consumer with his genetic endowment

(susceptibility to both utilitarian and informational reinforcement (Foxall 2010a, pp. 327-329)), his lifetime of reinforcement and punishment (that includes a cultural repertoire) in sufficiently similar contexts, and state of deprivation and satiation emits some behaviour (e.g., Foxall 1992b, 2010b). Learning history is activated by and primes the behaviour setting to form the consumer situation (Foxall 1997b): this is a specific empirical event (Jo at Tesco’s) that is directly observable and, therefore, constitutes the deepest level of analysis and is the critical explanatory core of the BPM (Foxall 1996b, 1997b, 1998b, 2005,

(susceptibility to both utilitarian and informational reinforcement (Foxall 2010a, pp. 327-329)), his lifetime of reinforcement and punishment (that includes a cultural repertoire) in sufficiently similar contexts, and state of deprivation and satiation emits some behaviour (e.g., Foxall 1992b, 2010b). Learning history is activated by and primes the behaviour setting to form the consumer situation (Foxall 1997b): this is a specific empirical event (Jo at Tesco’s) that is directly observable and, therefore, constitutes the deepest level of analysis and is the critical explanatory core of the BPM (Foxall 1996b, 1997b, 1998b, 2005,