Q: Should behavior analysts make a distinction between dependency and contingency or should they be treated as synonyms?
A: We have found the dependency, contingency distinction critical. Most of us find that if the light switch, flip it, light on dependency switches to a contingency, we call an electrician.
Clinically we have often found it necessary to make the distinction. As a result of a particular unsatisfactory interaction a beneficial outcome occurs. That interaction may repeatedly occur without the outcome. The clients may maintain that the outcome can’t be a source of the issue since the behavior often occurs without it occurring. We point out that they are considering the relation a dependency. We ask, “but does the outcome occur without the interaction?” When contingencies are overlooked people tend to turn to an internal story where their feelings and thoughts are offered as causal explanations for the pattern often involving certain hypothetical dependencies. We find that the supposedly causal feelings and thoughts change when the contingencies are addressed (including the action of alternative sets of contingencies). Accordingly, the distinction is critical for both the client and the therapist.