Contingency Analysis

Contingency Analysis

Systematically analyze behavior using the three-term contingency (ABC: Antecedent-Behavior-Consequence) to diagnose why behavior occurs or fails to occur.

Token Budget: ~800 tokens

Constraints

• Do not blame the organism. Analysis focuses on contingencies, not character flaws.
• Do not fabricate data. Base analysis on observable information provided.
• Do not recommend punishment as primary intervention. Analysis may reveal punishing contingencies, but recommendations should emphasize reinforcement.

When to Use

Invoke this skill when:

• Someone asks "Why does my team keep doing X?"
• Someone asks "How do I get people to stop doing Y?"
• Behavior is not occurring despite instructions
• Behavior occurs in wrong contexts
• There is a gap between intended and actual behavior
• Someone says "I've told them what to do but they don't do it"

Inputs

Workflow

Step 1: Define the Behavior Precisely

Make the behavior observable and measurable. Convert vague descriptions to specific actions.

Transform:

• "Being lazy" → "Arriving after 9:30 AM"
• "Not caring" → "Failing to respond to customer tickets within SLA"
• "Good attitude" → "Offering to help teammates when own work is complete"

Step 2: Identify the Antecedent (A)

What signals or occasions the behavior? Ask:

• What discriminative stimuli (SDs) are present when behavior occurs?
• Is there a clear signal that the behavior is appropriate/required?
• What motivating operations are in effect (deprivation, satiation)?

Step 3: Identify the Consequence (C)

What follows the behavior? Ask:

• What happens immediately after the behavior?
• Is the consequence actually reinforcing (increases behavior) or punishing (decreases)?
• What is the schedule of reinforcement?
• Are there unintended reinforcers?

Step 4: Analyze the Contingency

Synthesize the ABC relationship:

• Does the antecedent clearly signal when reinforcement is available?
• Is the consequence contingent on the behavior (if-then relationship)?
• Is the consequence immediate or delayed?
• Is there differential reinforcement (behavior produces different outcomes than non-behavior)?

Step 5: Diagnose the Problem

Common diagnoses:

Output Format

## Contingency Analysis

**Target Behavior:** [precisely defined behavior]

### Antecedent Analysis
- **Discriminative Stimulus:** [what signals behavior is appropriate]
- **Clarity:** [clear/unclear/absent]
- **Motivating Operations:** [relevant deprivation/satiation]

### Behavior Specification
- **Topography:** [the physical form of the behavior]
- **Frequency/Rate:** [how often it occurs or should occur]
- **Current Status:** [occurring too much/too little/wrong context]

### Consequence Analysis
- **Current Consequence:** [what follows the behavior]
- **Type:** [positive reinforcement/negative reinforcement/positive punishment/negative punishment/extinction]
- **Schedule:** [continuous/FR/VR/FI/VI]
- **Immediacy:** [immediate/delayed]
- **Contingent:** [yes/no - is there a clear if-then relationship?]

### Diagnosis
[Statement of why the contingency produces or fails to produce the behavior]

### Recommendations
1. [Specific contingency modification]
2. [Additional intervention if needed]
3. [Environmental design suggestion if relevant]

Outputs

Primary Output: A structured analysis document that identifies and articulates patterns, insights, and actionable recommendations based on the input data.

Format:

## Analysis: [Topic]

### Key Findings
- [Finding 1]
- [Finding 2]
- [Finding 3]

### Recommendations
1. [Action 1]
2. [Action 2]
3. [Action 3]

Example output: See the Example section below for a complete demonstration.

Example

Input: "My developers don't write documentation. I've told them it's important multiple times."

Output:

Why this works:

This example demonstrates the key principles of the skill in action. The approach is effective because:

• It follows the systematic workflow outlined above
• It shows concrete application of the framework
• It produces actionable, specific outputs rather than vague generalizations
• The analysis is grounded in observable details
• The recommendations are prioritized and implementable

Alternative applications:

This same approach can be applied to:

• Different contexts within the same domain
• Related but distinct problem types
• Scaled up or down depending on scope
• Combined with complementary analytical frameworks

Contingency Analysis

Target Behavior: Writing documentation for completed features

Antecedent Analysis

• Discriminative Stimulus: Feature completion (implied, not explicit)
• Clarity: Unclear - no specific signal that documentation is now required
• Motivating Operations: No deprivation/establishing operation for documentation behavior

Behavior Specification

• Topography: Creating written technical documentation
• Frequency/Rate: Should occur with each feature; currently near zero
• Current Status: Occurring too little (extinction or near-extinction)

Consequence Analysis

• Current Consequence: No immediate consequence for documenting or not documenting
• Type: Extinction (no reinforcement for documentation behavior)
• Schedule: N/A (no reinforcement occurring)
• Immediacy: N/A
• Contingent: No - documentation produces no differential outcome

Competing Behavior: Coding new features is reinforced (visible progress, problem-solving satisfaction, recognition for shipped features)

Diagnosis

Documentation behavior is on extinction while coding behavior is richly reinforced. Verbal instruction ("I've told them it's important") does not create contingencies; it creates rules, but rule-governed behavior requires either a history of reinforcement for rule-following or clear contingencies backing the rule. Neither is present.

Recommendations

1. Establish clear SD: Documentation becomes a blocking gate for code review or merge (if X then documentation is required)
2. Arrange immediate reinforcement: Brief acknowledgment when documentation is committed; visible documentation completion metrics
3. Reduce response effort: Provide templates, integrate documentation into workflow, lower initial expectations (shaping)
4. Make contingency explicit: "Code without documentation will not be reviewed" (establish consequence)

Integration

This skill is foundational. After diagnosis, invoke:

• shaping-plan if the behavior needs to be built from scratch
• schedule-diagnosis if the behavior occurs but inconsistently
• extinction-procedure if a competing behavior needs to be eliminated

Source Expert

Derived from B.F. Skinner's operant conditioning framework. The three-term contingency (SD → R → SR) is the fundamental unit of behavioral analysis.