Question: How does a contingency analysis approach the topic of values?
Answer: The issue is a complicated one. I value silver over steel, but value gold over silver along a monetary continuum, but value silver over gold aesthetically, or steel over either sentimentally (a gift from a loved one). In essence, value is determined by the contingencies and potentiating variables and changes given changes in contingencies. Accordingly, any definition of value is in essence a contingency analysis. Similarly, being valued says one’s behavior is arrayed along a continuum of outcomes, and is preferred over other possibilities on the continuum. One’s work is “valued” is an example. Thus, acting in accord with one’s values and being valued are different. The former is a description of one’s own value, versus the latter, which is what others might prefer. The preferred versus valued distinction is an interesting one, and likely necessary for a concept analysis.
The delay discounting literature helps make a distinction between preferred and valued. I of course value $200 more than $20, but may prefer $20 if I have to wait a year for the $200. So any concept analysis must make the distinction between value and prefer, though that is not easy. Utility theory has the most to experimentally say about quantifying value and uses preference to do so (see optional reading for NCA course). They treat value as indicated by the activity specific consequences versus other consequences. How much would one have to be paid to switch from college professor to garbage collector as a measure of how much one values a profession. It is a measure of competing value. Here preference switching is not used to indicate a change in value, but as an indicator of value. The activity specific consequences of being a professor is valued at $500,000 in income. One still values being a professor, but not as much as earning $500,000 per year.
The difference between activity specific consequences and superimposed consequences is typically the values conflict most describe. I value kindness, but my job requires me to be a bit nasty. Translated: The effects of acts of kindness are positive reinforcers and would maintain that behavior if the consequences of on the job nastiness didn’t prevent it. Searching for one’s values is often disentangling the activity specific reinforcers from the other reinforcers/aversives imposed by organizational or social requirements.
Given a range of activities, and their activity specific consequences, the ones selected by the contingency (including the behavior that meets the contingency requirement) define value. That value will change if the contingencies and potentiating variables change. Why certain activity specific consequences are prepotent over others is the study of programing. Whether one prefers what one values, is a function of other contingencies. From this one can derive the critical and varying features, but I will leave that to you.