Interview with Dr. James Meindl
Biography:
Dr. Meindl received his undergraduate degree in psychology and master’s degree from Penn State – Harrisburg. He then received his PhD in Applied Behavior Analysis and Special Education from The Ohio State University. He has worked as a behavior analyst across home and school settings. His work in these settings included developing academic programming, teaching independent living skills, and focusing on problem behaviors such as self-injury and aggression. Dr. Meindl also has experience providing consultation services to a juvenile detention facility.
In addition to his clinical work, Dr. Meindl has a wide range of research interests, including identifying factors that influence choice and preference, contrast effects, interventions for aggression and self-injury, and the effects of delayed consequences. He is currently focused on investigating ways that ABA can be utilized outside of “mainstream ABA”. Dr. Meindl's sponsored work has been funded by the Memphis chapter of The Urban Child Institute. He has authored or co-authored research published in numerous journals, including Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, Archives of Scientific Psychology, and the American Journal of Public Health.
The following has been paraphrased based on notes taken during the interview.
Attendees: DY= Daria Yudina (interviewer), JM= James Meindl (interviewee)
DY: Thank you for taking the time to meet with me. I found your talk at BABAT so interesting, and I think really the first of its kind that I’ve had the privilege to attend. For me, it was particularly relevant because of the population I work with, which could be considered outside of mainstream ABA. I also really appreciate the breadth of research interest you have. Can you tell the readers a bit about your background and interests?
JM: Absolutely, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this as well as having been able to present at the BABAT conference. I received an undergraduate degree in psychology, masters in behavior analysis under Richard Foxx in Penn State, and worked with Dr. Nancy Neef at Ohio State University where I was able to learn a tremendous amount. I have been at the University of Memphis since 2011 as a program coordinator. My research interests have certainly varied over time. But generally, I would say that I am interested in trying to extend behavior analysis in areas that are outside of mainstream behavior analysis such as the talk that you came to around mass shootings. I’m also currently working on a paper discussing Psilocybin Assisted Therapy on a neurobiological level.
DY: Both are quite fascinating topics. I noticed your talk focused heavily on working with school aged/young adults. Can you tell me a bit more about that? Is that a product of sample size and access?
JM: A lot of my experience has been with younger individuals. In addition, the research itself really looks at both fame-seeking and pre-cursor behavior, which is often seen as a characteristic with younger individuals. My question and interest are specifically around how behavior analysis can become involved in the discussion, and be part of working on establishing a conceptual analysis of an event such as a mass shooting. Part of what the research and my talk focused on was also around the phenomena of multiple mass shootings occurring in close proximity of each other, and how the media reporting on it could contribute to that occurrence. Mass killings are a combination of a sequence of thoughts and actions that are very much influenced by the environment. Our becoming involved in conversation could really contribute to developing proactive and reactive strategies to decrease the likelihood of repeat occurrences. There is some research that has demonstrated that there is a temporary increase in probability of another mass shooting occurring within 13 days. There is also research that looks at other socially significant behaviors that were reduced by changing the way the media reported on them.
DY: Your discussion on the media’s reporting of these events was quite eye-opening. You talked about reporting at times essentially providing a step-by-step guide for someone else to engage in the same behavior. You brought up having media guidelines for such events, and how such guidelines are in part borrowed from research on a similar role the media can play in suicide behavior. Can you elaborate on that?
JM: The way the media reports can potentially increase the probability of an imitation behavior. When a mass killing/shooting happens, it is usually followed by significant media coverage, including a lot of pictures, retelling of the events in great detail, as well as the person’s life story. This level of detail sets up an opportunity for imitative behavior, as someone could potentially find commonalities within their own life, as well as step by step descriptions of the event itself. It adds up to increasing the chances of multiple mass killings happening in a short time frame.
JM: The World Health Organization posted media guidelines on reporting suicides in an effort to prevent imitation, and it has been found to be effective. The guidelines include suggestions such as: refraining from sensationalizing suicide, not suggesting that suicide is caused by any single factor such as depression, limiting the frequency and duration of the coverage of the suicide, not providing step-by-step descriptions of methods, limiting use of photographs and videos, and being particularly careful with celebrity suicides. The same framework could be adopted for the coverage of a mass shooter.
DY: Were you always interested in specifically bringing this topic to behavior analysts? What are some tips you may have for a behavior analyst who is interested in doing both research and applied clinical work in this area?
JM: No, when I originally started doing research and writing a paper on the topic, I wanted it to be for a non-behaviorally trained audience. However, there are a lot of pieces to how these events are seen on a societal level that make that a more challenging task. These include pieces like coming up with a working operational definition to really look at and make sense of the data on mass shootings. Likewise, there is a need to have a basic understanding of what constitutes an environment, or that thoughts are behavior too. There is a lot of circular reasoning and instances of explanatory fiction that exist in the portrayal of behaviors from someone who has committed a mass shooting. This person is bad so they did X, they did X so this person is bad and this happened because the person “snapped” which makes it a difficult jumping off point. Going through the existing research, I also found myself noticing how little clarity there was in even an operational definition of a mass killing/shooting. There are some basic principles that behaviorists share that make it a bit more accessible. A behavior analyst would look to focus on prediction and control to be able followed up with experimental analysis to bring us closer understanding why the behavior occurs as well as proposing function based effective interventions.
DY: I see that in my work with folks who have experienced incarceration or engage in behaviors which break the law repeatedly, despite having faced some harsh ramifications. Why do you think behavior analysts are uniquely positioned to join the conversation, and how would you recommend we conceptualize working with folks where someone may notice what we would consider warning signs to behaviors which may be precursors to mass shootings, gun violence and even just risky behavior?
JM: As behavior analysts we are trained to look at predicting, and to influence and control behavior. I can say to a behavior analyst, don’t look at the mass shooting event, look at all the things that happened before and after. We can also recognize that it’s not the mass shooter’s fault. In fact, it’s no one’s fault. It’s the contingencies in the environment that have been arranged and those contingencies could be changed. This is much different than how mainstream media understands and makes sense of a mass shooting, or someone committing a crime, or engaging in risky behavior. And there are differences within the context which lead to the crime, which are important to consider fully.
DY: I think that’s such an important distinction, that there are differences between shootings/gun violence and the context that it occurred in is as important to understand as the behavior itself, as well as the factors that led to the event. You mention this within your work when you discuss the shooting that took place in Florida in 2016 which involved gang violence as well as a mass killing. From an applied point of view, rehabilitative work looks much different once the legal system becomes involved. Resources become much harder to come by and the focus shifts away from rehabilitative work which could prevent future occurrences.
JM: Absolutely, a shooting that took place where the person shot a bunch of strangers in a bank is much different than for example a shooting that took place because of gang violence and familial disputes. The topography (form) of the behavior may be the same but the function and intervention are much different. When behavior problems escalate to the level of breaking the law, there’s a whole set of different gears which are put into motion, and I think that’s what you are referring to. These supersede behavior analysis interventions. A common lay person may believe that going to jail is the intervention but a Behavior Analyst may question and look at what happens after the person is out of jail? How do we change the environment and the contingencies at play? As a field we understand that the factors that are in play are also very individual, which also makes us appropriate to join the conversation.
DY: I think the general public might say that jail should be an effective intervention for a crime, and yet we see how often it’s not. We have data that looks at how many individuals within the jail system have a diagnosis and clearly have documented additional needs. These needs are not met in jail, leading to higher recidivism rates when they are released. So while jail is an intervention, it’s not a very successful one. I am fortunate enough to work for an organization that prioritizes giving resources such as housing, medical, and psychiatric care to people who have been systematically oppressed and lack those resources themselves. Yet I can’t help but wonder why there aren’t more BCBAs interested in doing this work.
JM: Right, as behaviorists we know that I can put you in jail and I can put you on probation but that doesn’t change the environment that the behavior took place in and thus how can you change it? There’s no standardized assessment for how to prevent someone from repeating the crime. There’s no set programming targeting what we want to change and that’s what perhaps makes a behavioral analytic approach ideal. We can look at the situation and see that the current way of managing it as follows: there is a problem, we have provide a punishment or an aversive, not looking to change the factors that led to the behavior itself or a conceptual analysis on why the behavior is occurring. This applies to many other behaviors as well. For example, growing up I had friends who would engage in stealing things that they had in their possession. That is much different than someone stealing because it’s something they need and don’t have. So why does the person who has the item still engage in the stealing behavior? Because the behavior of stealing itself can be automatically reinforcing- it’s not about the item that is being taken.
DY: I love having this conversation because it’s rare that I get to discuss with another behavior analyst some of these phenomena that are so socially significant. I see our science being able to provide some solutions to these insidious societal issues such as gun violence, homelessness, and drug abuse. Often these kinds of activities can result in repeated incarcerations, and I always find myself hoping more BCBAs will want to get involved and do this kind of work. As I referenced earlier, I am fortunate enough to work for a non-profit, Advocates, that looks to provide resources such as housing, medical and psychiatric care to folks, in order for the real work and progress to begin to take place. It’s been the most humbling yet fulfilling work I’ve done in my career.
JM: It's definitely a hard pivot from doing early intervention that’s for sure. I think that when we talk to other BCBAS around examples of ways behavior science can be applied, or has been demonstrated to be effective in solving a problem, it helps make it more likely. You also have to remember that in the grand scheme of things the concept of providing access to resources is a newer one- it’s a sign we’re moving in the right direction. There was a piece on NPR that looked at how the same few individuals were responsible for a large percentage of shootings in an area. The intervention was having more frequent check-ins and if there was a lack of any gun activity or violence in between the check-ins the individual received monetary compensation. Those individuals then told other people they knew that this was occurring who also refrained from the gun violence. You won’t be surprised that this of course worked. Behavior analysts uniquely understand why. This intervention was replicated across a few different areas and the results were clear- gun violence in those areas plummeted.
DY: Thank you so much again for taking this time to educate the readers and myself. Last question: Can you talk a little about some of the ways that one can go about changing the way that they think and talk about a behavior like this? Hopefully leading to a meaningful change in the behaviors we’ve discussed themselves?
JM: I actually think about it in terms of my own smoking cessation. I smoked a lot for about 10 years, it was automatically maintained. There is nothing inherent about cigarettes themselves to have dopamine released, that got acquired from having it be a conditioned reinforcer. But you can also change the way that you talk and think about it. Values that someone has can be seen as shaped by context. Changing the context and changing the language we use around it can change the value itself. ACT teaches you how to separate language and identify values and look to change the function. So like in my example, I had to make cigarettes less valuable, less reinforcing. When we talk about it differently the value of it changes and the reinforcing value also changes. The longer the learning history the more complicated it becomes, especially when considering that while it’s possible to teach an old dog new tricks, perhaps only if he actively wants to. How we talk about something, whether it’s amongst ourselves, with our own inner dialogue, or what is being presented in the media, influences our values and the behaviors that follow.