**4. Macrocontingential system**

All human psychological interaction takes place through a means of contact and the regulatory framework is the one that makes our relationships possible [5]. The possibilities of detachment of human behavior regarding the physical-chemical aspects of situations in the here and now allow a person to behave according to established social conventions by the members of his/her culture that share practices with him/her. This possibility is linked to the language [2], which allows him/her to individualize socially but likewise to socialize to adapt to a culture's practices.

In order to be able to analyze the correspondence between a person's valorative practices and his/her social group and considering that these values were learned in a circumstance where values are explained as the "ought to be" of a type of relationship, two microcontingencies are

Contingential Analysis: Interbehavioral Methodology for the Applied Field

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74464

31

**a.** Exemplary microcontingency is a microcontingency in which a person or several people explicitly establish or established a behavior mode as the "ought to be" of a certain type of

**b.** Situational microcontingencies are those microcontingencies that are regulated by the ex-

Taking these two microcontingencies into account, the macrocontingential analysis is performed by studying the correspondences between the two dimensions of the assessed behavior. First, correspondences or lack of same between the practices and beliefs in the two types of microcontingencies (exemplary/situational) are analyzed. Then, the correspondence or lack of same between practices and beliefs in each type of microcontingency is analyzed. In both cases the two dimensions of the assessment behavior, the effective practices, in other words, the assessment actions, and the alternative practice of such actions are identified, namely his/ her beliefs in relation to those type of actions. This relationship between the two microcontingencies, between doing and believing, and between people in each type of microcontingency, is classified in two types: intrasubject, in which the correspondence or lack of same between what a person does and believes, is related to what he/she does, and inter-subject, which refers to those that can or cannot exist between the different significant people in an interaction [7]. For example, in a clinical context, if a mother complains that she hits her children and says that she cannot avoid it and that she feels very bad afterward, because she is convinced that what she does is an abuse and a sin, as a brief description, we would analyze a lack of intra-subject correspondence in the mother herself in the situational microcontingency. What she believes does not match what she does. It is worth mentioning that this analysis is supple-

The source of behavior is proposed with a set of categories that can identify relevant aspects in a person's interactive history, considering the functional historical role of the person himself/ herself and of the significant people to the behavior under study. The origin/source may have

Two aspects are evaluated: (1) history of the microcontingency and (2) evaluation of compe-

**a.** Circumstance in which the behavior started: this refers to the description of specific conventional circumstances in which the studied behavior acquired its particular functionality.

relationship, so to say, it is the relationship that works as an "example".

emplary ones and in which the value/assessment criteria are tacit.

mentary to what has been found in the microcontingential analysis.

a dispositional function in the currently studied behavior.

tencies [6]. Each one is described in more detail hereunder.

**5. Source of problem**

**5.1. Microcontingency history**

identified, an exemplary and a situational one [6, 7].

All human interactions thus have a value dimension that depends on the cultural context where they occur [5]. In this regard, behaviors will be rated as moral to the extent that they adjust to the value criteria that regulate the practices in groups of socially ranked individuals [5] and on the contrary, they shall be rated as bad or immoral, when they do not adjust. Due to the fact that there are social hierarchies, individuals' behavior will be assessed differently depending on who emits the same and on who it affects.

It is important to consider that assessments do not occur due to internal or abstract entities or internalizations of cognitions or beliefs. Behavioral assessment is regulated by functional aspects that are not present in an effective manner when such behaviors occur. Ribes [8] mentions that we can only talk about beliefs based on individuals' behavior: *when we talk about believing we do not refer to any uncertain or incomplete knowledge inside our heads. Actually, we refer to the tacit or express acceptance of the adjustment criteria that regulate our actions in a given situation* (p. 84). The possibility of saying that someone believes in something occurs as a result of the observation of an individual's behavior, so we cannot explain beliefs as something different or independent. To say that a person has a belief does not mean that he/she has something inside but rather that he/she will tend to behave in a certain way with people and things [9, 10], in other words, to behave according to certain criteria.

Values, such as actions and beliefs, are acquired before other individuals explicitly impose behavior modes in the "ought to be" manner in a specific social context [5], and these situations, in which one or more people explain the "ought to be" of a relationship, are the ones that regulate individuals' behavior in other situations in which these criteria are tacit. In this manner, *the person acts in a situation which assessment criteria are tacit, as if he/she were in a situation with explicit criteria* ([5], p. 105]).

A person may behave according to the rules established by some of the members of his/ her social reference group in a particular situation, which would result in a correspondence between his/her behavior and the behavior that the reference group established as appropriate; in another situation, the person may behave differently from his/her social reference group's forms of behavior in exemplary situations, which would result in a lack of correspondence between his/her behavior and the behavior demands of the social group that should act as the model. This situation would be considered as a moral problem due to that lack of correspondence or adjustment.

Taking the foregoing into consideration, this methodology's second analysis dimension, the *macrocontingential system,* was developed. The said system refers to the psychological analysis of the moral dimension of behavior and, in a simplified manner, consists of an analysis of the correspondences between the valorative practices—such as actions and beliefs—of a person and of the people of his/her reference group.

The way of studying the moral dimension of behavior, from a psychological perspective, is to focus on a person and his/her social environment.

In order to be able to analyze the correspondence between a person's valorative practices and his/her social group and considering that these values were learned in a circumstance where values are explained as the "ought to be" of a type of relationship, two microcontingencies are identified, an exemplary and a situational one [6, 7].


Taking these two microcontingencies into account, the macrocontingential analysis is performed by studying the correspondences between the two dimensions of the assessed behavior. First, correspondences or lack of same between the practices and beliefs in the two types of microcontingencies (exemplary/situational) are analyzed. Then, the correspondence or lack of same between practices and beliefs in each type of microcontingency is analyzed. In both cases the two dimensions of the assessment behavior, the effective practices, in other words, the assessment actions, and the alternative practice of such actions are identified, namely his/ her beliefs in relation to those type of actions. This relationship between the two microcontingencies, between doing and believing, and between people in each type of microcontingency, is classified in two types: intrasubject, in which the correspondence or lack of same between what a person does and believes, is related to what he/she does, and inter-subject, which refers to those that can or cannot exist between the different significant people in an interaction [7]. For example, in a clinical context, if a mother complains that she hits her children and says that she cannot avoid it and that she feels very bad afterward, because she is convinced that what she does is an abuse and a sin, as a brief description, we would analyze a lack of intra-subject correspondence in the mother herself in the situational microcontingency. What she believes does not match what she does. It is worth mentioning that this analysis is supplementary to what has been found in the microcontingential analysis.
