Are Discrimination & Hate Byproducts of COVID-19? (Part 1)

A Behavior Analyst’s View on How Hate and Discrimination Will Escalate During the Pandemic

Discrimination, defined by the Webster-Merriam Dictionary, is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex. In behavior analysis, we define discrimination a bit differently. We define discrimination as differential responding between two people or things, based on some identified characteristic. For example, I can easily discriminate between those who are from St. Louis as opposed to those who are from New York the minute I hear them speak. Both have distinct accents that allow me to discriminate between them.

What does this have to do with COVID-19, you ask? I will tell you why! As emotions and fear heighten, we, as humans, begin to look for ways that we can determine if someone is dangerous (in this case has the COVID-19 virus). Responding differently to someone who has the virus and could potentially spread it to us is pertinent to our health. Those who figure out how to respond differently and stay away from those who are sick are more likely to remain well. The difficult thing is that until someone is very sick, we have no way of telling if that person is safe or not. This is hugely problematic, as without clear ways to make judgments about others, we will begin to identify arbitrary characteristics that may or may not have anything to do with the likeliness of getting infected.

Before we jump all the way in to how the COVID-19 pandemic is making it more likely that we will respond to one another with discrimination and hate, I need to give you a brief lesson on behavior analysis. Don’t worry, this won’t be long and you will learn something really cool, so please bear with me.

Research in the science of behavior has provided us with an understanding of why people do and say the things they do and say. For the purposes of this topic, there are three main principles that are important: positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, and punishment. Behaviorally speaking these are all consequences, meaning they happen after a behavior and directly effect the likeliness we will engage in the behavior again in the future. Positive reinforcement is a good consequence that increases the chance we will do that behavior again in the future. Simply put, we do more of the things that result in good things. Negative reinforcement also increases the future chance of behavior, but in a different way. Negative reinforcement is the removal of something aversive. Thus, when a behavior is negatively reinforced, it means that something was done that resulted in the removal of that negative or aversive stimulus. The next time we come in contact with that negative stimulus, we are more likely to do the same thing that removed it before. Finally, punishment works on behavior in the opposite way. Punishment is something negative that happens after a behavior and results in that behavior NOT happening again in the future. For example, if you are at a bar and call someone a “jerk” and that results in you getting punched in the face, chances are you will not call that person a “jerk” anymore.

Now that we have an idea of these three consequences, let’s focus on the behaviors that are most likely to occur right now — the behaviors that will result in us not getting sick. A few things that are important to point out about this set of behaviors:

1. We don’t currently have a clear understanding of what behaviors will result in the best outcomes.

2. We tend to use coercion to get others to stop doing things.

3. We sometimes identify the wrong characteristics as ways of discriminating those doing “right” and those doing “wrong”. We call this faulty stimulus control.

Let’s explore these.

1. Lack of clearly identified behaviors.

Right now there is not only argument about what behaviors will result in us most likely not getting sick, but also if that is the most important set of behaviors. Here is a quick summary of what I have heard and read about thus far:

Some argue that the only important task right now is to prevent people from continuing to spread COVID-19 (World Health Organization #5 of “do the five”).

Others are focused on the impact that social isolation will have on society. People may not get sick, but at what cost? (Henning-Smith, 2020)

Some say everyone is at risk and highlight younger and healthy people who have passed as a result of COVID-19 (KMOV, Stat News).

Others say that the elderly and those with a history of medical complications are the ones at risk and everyone else is okay (CDC).

Some have said that we should wear face masks and gloves in public to prevent the spread and ensure we don’t get sick (The Lancet).

Others have voiced their concern about the public purchasing all of the necessary medical supplies, leaving none for those professionals caring for the sick (NPR).

Some have stated that we should test everyone and isolate the sick.

Others have recommended individual quarantine at home with their families and that we should only test those who have reason to believe they have been exposed.

I could go on and on at the differing thoughts and opinions that we, as the general public, have received from the professionals and leaders across the world. The point here is that we are being provided differing information, and behaviorally, something predictable happens when individuals have unclear expectations about what they are supposed to be doing: we start responding according to what reinforcers are strongest in our individual lives.

What do I mean by this? Let’s look at the following example. I have an autoimmune disease and an ill father, putting me and my family in the highest risk category. I am also financially stable and able to work from home to ensure my income does not suffer substantially. Thus, my main motivation is to stay healthy and the most powerful reinforcer is that of negative reinforcement because the way to stay healthy is to escape and avoid COVID-19. This means that I will be more likely to do the things that will ensure I don’t get sick. However, since I am not exactly sure what that means, I am going to choose the things that sound most logical to me. If I don’t leave the house and no one in my household leaves the house, then we should all be okay. Thus, my choice is to stay at home and as a result, I think everyone else should stay home too because it will stop the spread.

On the other side of things is a good friend of mine, who does not have any health concerns and who depends on going to work every day. Without going to work, my friend does not get paid. This puts a clear and large financial hardship on my friend. Additionally, my friend has two school-aged children who are also now at home and everyone is trying to adjust to going to school and working online while sharing one computer. In this situation, my friend is not as concerned about getting sick. Instead the concern is how they will survive through the next month with the kids going crazy and having no money to pay the bills, let alone food and other resources that have substantially increased with the absence of the meals the kids ate while in school. The motivation and most powerful reinforcer here is to LEAVE THE HOUSE. As a result, my friend goes on walks with the kids and occasionally sneaks off to the park so the kids can run around and play. My friend also takes everyone to the grocery store as a way to try and minimize the cost of buying lots of food at once as well as providing another way to get everyone out of the house.

We now have two very reasonable people doing very different things. Both are concerned about the pandemic. Both want it to stop. But both are doing opposite things to try to get there. The reason? They both also have unclear expectations as to what they are supposed to be doing and what will lead to the best outcomes.

2. Coercion.

Coercion occurs when one person introduces an aversive or unpleasant situation to get another person to stop doing something. Coercion is why you got hit when you called someone a “jerk.” You got hit so that you would stop calling that person a “jerk.” If you hit that jerk back, you were using coercion to get the jerk to stop hitting you. Right now, the cities and states that have implemented “stay at home” ordinances are enforcing them using coercion. If you come out of your house for a non-essential activity, you will be subject to punishment — a class A misdemeanor if you live in St. Louis.

What does this scenario have to do with hate and discrimination? I’ll tell you. The other thing we know about behavior is that we are more likely to use coercion to control others who are doing what we don’t want them to do. In this scenario coercion may take the form of me yelling at or lecturing my friend for leaving the house and worse, taking the kids who touch everything and wipe their noses with their sleeves. If I do have to go to the store, I might glare at the people who are walking around as if they might not get sick. I might even go as far as to say something to anyone who gets within 6 feet of me. I do all of this because my main motivation is to stay well and the way that I think that will happen is to keep people away from me at all costs.

Coercion is the result of negative reinforcement and punishment. There are many problems with both negative reinforcement and punishment. Coercion tends to work in the short term, but rarely has positive long-term outcomes. Negative reinforcement also results in “just enough” responding, meaning that people do only what is required to remove the aversive situation. Keep in mind; however, that “just enough” also includes “whatever it takes” when the aversive situation is more difficult to remove. Punishment is negative reinforcement’s brother from another mother. Here, the focus is on NOT doing something to PREVENT the aversive situation (remember negative reinforcement is DOING something to REMOVE the aversive situation). With these two things working together, we are subject to some very negative side effects. There are several, but I will focus on the most relevant four. They include:

1. Emotional Responding. Emotional responding occurs when there are heightened emotional responses following the introduction of an aversive. Currently there are many aversives that have been introduced including staying at home, crying children with nothing to do, bills piling up, and slow or intermittent internet. As a result, you are more likely to cry, scream, pound on things, or snap at the others around you. This may also be seen if you go to the store and there is no toilet paper. Previously you may not have been bothered, but now, as a result of the negative events currently taking place, you sit on the floor and cry.

2. Aggression. Aggression occurs in two different ways, reflexively or operantly. Reflexive aggression occurs when a person is exposed to a negative stimulus. As a result of this exposure, the person then aggresses towards someone else. For example, now at home where emotions are heightened and everyone is annoyed, your spouse screams at you. Your child then asks you a question and you yell at the child. Operant aggression is what most of us are more familiar with. It happens when one person retaliates towards another person who introduced an aversive situation. Operant aggression could occur if someone is observed coughing into their hand and then touching things in a store. This could be viewed as aversive and people may respond to that person aggressively — either verbally or physically. Putting these together, you are at home, where your spouse yells at you because you ran out of toilet paper. You then go to the store, where someone coughs in the parking lot. When you enter the store, someone is in front of you and you yell at that person to move out of the way.

3. Social Disruption. Here, the setting in which punishment occurs adopts the negative qualities associated with the punishment. For example, the first COVID-19 case was in Wuhan, China. COVID-19 spread quickly and severely throughout China. Thus, if COVID-19 is a punisher (and it is), then all of China as well as those who may be associated with China — including Americans of Chinese decent — may adopt those negative qualities associated with COVID-19. This is why we are beginning to see racism and other hateful behavior towards those of Chinese decent (The Guardian, Huffpost, The Vox) .

4. Escape or avoidance behavior. Punishment is used to get one behavior to stop. Negative reinforcement is used to get a behavior to happen. Most often when used together (i.e., if the right behavior does not happen, the aversive situation will occur) it is assumed (or at least hoped) that the individual will do the targeted thing. However, we know that both negative reinforcement and punishment don’t always result in this happening. More often individuals adopt other behaviors that we would prefer they not do either. As mentioned before, currently in St. Louis, MO there is threat of a Class A misdemeanor if anyone is caught outside engaging in non-essential activities. The threat of this punishment (misdemeanor) is meant to ensure people stay home. However, what you are seeing is that people are finding other ways to leave the house. Most commonly everyone is just waiting until there are no authority figures around and then leaving the house as they so choose to do.

A quick note is needed here. None of these side effects happen when negative reinforcement and punishment are used correctly (Johnston, 1985), but we will save that discussion for another time. For now, we know that the policies and procedures as well as our own behavior will not be the correct implementation of these things. That takes specific training. It is also important to note that because these procedures are not implemented correctly, it is more likely that racism, ageism, and the other negative responses we have towards one another will develop and strengthen.

3. Faulty Stimulus Control

Stimulus is the general term that is used to describe aspects of the environment that can be differentiated from one another (Copper, Heron, Heward, 2007). In other words, a stimulus is something in the environment — a sound, an object, a change in temperature. It usually serves as a signal for us to do something different than what we were doing before. For example, in the morning the coffee maker beeps. This beep is a stimulus that results in me walking to the coffee pot and pouring my coffee. Stimulus control occurs when the presence of a stimulus readily evokes or alters some dimension of behavior. Following my example, stimulus control is demonstrated if the beep always results in me walking to the coffee pot and pouring coffee. If I don’t walk over to the coffee pot, only sometimes walk to the coffee pot, or walk to the coffee pot in response to something else (maybe my significant other saying “your coffee’s ready”), there is not good stimulus control. Similarly, faulty stimulus control can happen when something that usually is not associated with the response or behavior occurs and thus, the behavior begins to happen in response to that stimulus. For example, maybe the dog barked when the coffee pot beeped and now I go get coffee when the dog barks. Me getting coffee when the dog barks is the result of faulty stimulus control.

Here is what can happen with stimulus control given our current pandemic. We have already discussed that negative reinforcement is what is controlling our behavior of not getting sick. However, in order for negative reinforcement to work, there has to be a stimulus (the aversive stimulus) to escape or avoid. We know that COVID-19 is the stimulus to avoid, but there is not an easy way to know where it is so that we can avoid it. We can’t see it, smell it, or hear it and thus we are left to identify other stimuli that are associated with COVID-19 and avoid those stimuli instead. Right now there are a few things that are well associated with COVID-19. They include coughing, fever, New York City, Italy, China, and hospitals. Some of these stimuli are easier to identify than others. Coughing, for example, produces a sound and specific movements by the individual. I can easily tell when someone is coughing. In turn, I can’t easily tell when someone has a fever. I need a thermometer for that). Similarly, I can’t tell if someone is from New York until I talk with them and I certainly don’t want to get close enough to anyone to do that. However, in America, it is easier to distinguish those of Asian descent from those of European, African, or Latino decent. We now have identified stimuli that may be associated with COVID-19; however, there is fault in this. Not every cough is because someone has COVID-19 and not every person of Asian descent lives in or has recently been to China. The problem is that the negative reinforcer is not getting sick. Thus, if we see someone coughing and stay away from that person and then don’t get sick, the behavior of staying away from someone coughing is reinforced — and so we will do again next time we see someone coughing. The same is true for any other stimulus we have associated with the potential of getting sick.

Putting it together, we develop discrimination.

Right now, we are all under conditions of severe punishment and negative reinforcement. However, the negative reinforcers and potential punishers are different for each person. For some it is the potential of getting sick; for others it is having children at home all day; still for others is it not being able to see your family and friends or go to the gym. These differences will result in each of us behaving in a slightly different way, as we are all trying to get to a different solution.

The similarity we all have is that we are under aversive conditions. I didn’t talk about it extensively, but the other thing that is important is to note that positive reinforcement is the best way to strengthen behavior and ensure the “right” behaviors happen. In a typical day, most of us get up and go to work. We care lovingly for our children and interact with one another nicely. That is because there is a lot of positive reinforcement for doing these things. Now, all of that positive reinforcement is gone. You can’t kiss your child and wave goodbye as they get on the bus for school because school is closed. You can’t tell them to get dressed for school because again, there is no school. You can’t greet others on the street because you are either not on the street or you are trying to stay as far away from others as possible. When you are under aversive conditions and void of positive reinforcement, we see aggression, social disruption, emotional responding, avoidance, and other inappropriate behaviors increase. These behaviors will be directed at the aversive situations (or, at times, any random thing due to the reflexive aggression that occurs with largely aversive and uncontrollable situations).

Unfortunately, right now other people are the stimulus for COVID-19. The message being sent across the world is that we need to stay away from one another to stop or slow the spread of the virus. However, we know that not every person is “dangerous”. We know that some people do not have COVID-19 and that if we interacted with them we would be okay. Here is where things get interesting. Remember that faulty stimulus control? It works both ways. While we were learning and figuring out the stimuli to stay away from, we were also learning the stimuli that were safe. And because there is no clear way to tell if someone has COVID-19 (void of the things already discussed), we will adopt faulty stimulus control over “healthy” people as well.

Let’s look at the following examples. Please note that the situations are based on real individuals, but their names have been changed.

Martha is a mom of three young children and works from home. Her work schedule is not interrupted due to the stay-at-home ordinances and school closures. In fact, it has increased, as her company has stepped up to try and help those who are at risk of financial hardship. Her husband works outside of the home and his schedule was not affected either, as he is an essential service provider. Martha and her husband, John are now faced with how to care for their children, ensure they attend online school, and get their jobs done in addition to the normal every day running of a household activities. Martha has several friends who are parents of her children’s friends who either also work from home or are stay-at-home parents. Thus, Martha has worked out a rotation schedule between her and her friends so that the kids rotate households each day. This allows each parent to stay sane, get some work done, and have some relief from a house full of kids. The problem here? We now have several kids mixing their germs and we don’t actually know if any of them are sick. This is the result of faulty stimulus control. Martha knows these people and knows they haven’t traveled and no one is coughing. Thus, she assumes they are okay and instead responds to the negative reinforcer of a loud and chaotic household.

Linda is Martha’s sister. Linda usually works in a large corporate office with many other people, but has been ordered to stay at home. She does not have any children, so her household is quiet and she is enjoying not getting up an hour early to commute to work. Linda also has several health issues, putting her in the high-risk category for COVID-19. Staying home is a negative reinforcer for her, as it ensures (or so she thinks) that she will not get sick. Linda knows that she will have to go outside occasionally to get the necessities for her household, so she appreciates that everyone is following the social isolation recommendations. Linda thinks this will not only help slow the spread, but also increase the chances of her remaining healthy. Two things happen with Linda. First, she has run out of household necessities, and Martha, knowing how worried her sister is about going to the grocery store, offers to give her some of the materials Martha’s family has. Linda heads over to Martha’s house, not knowing today is the day that Martha cares for all of the children.

What do you think will happen when Linda arrives at Martha’s house?

If you said several very negative things, you are right. Linda arrives and sees children running around in the backyard. She even hears a kid cough and she literally bumps into one of the parents coming to pick up her kids. There are a lot of aversive stimuli introduced for Linda, and what we know about behavior is that Linda is going to do all she can to get away from them and perhaps respond emotionally and aggressively. Linda pauses at the front door, considering running back to her car and going home. The problem is that Linda really needs the supplies Martha has and now feels completely exposed. The grocery store is even more negative in this moment, as Linda thinks she will be even more exposed. Linda knocks on the door and Martha, chocking on some water that went down wrong, opens the door coughing. Linda begins screaming at Martha, who in turn screams at the kids to be quiet. Everything continued to go downhill from there.

Now let’s look at how these same patterns of behavior will play out in larger society as we are forced to interact with one another in some way. People like Linda, who have identified coughing people as the aversive stimulus will do all she can to stay away from those people. People like Martha, who are used to kids coughing all the time will look for other stimuli. She is more likely to identify characteristics of a person that have been associated with COVID-19 such as race, orient of decent, and potentially even locations. Both will respond aggressively and emotionally if they are forced to come into contact with what they have identified as the stimulus associated with COVID-19.

This translates into a lot of negative emotion and aggression towards one another in larger society. And those of us with characteristics that are easy to identify and have been largely associated with COVID-19 are at much higher risk for being targets of that emotion and aggression. This is how racism, ageism, ableism, and all of the other negative -isms develop. We are already beginning to see it escalate and it will continue to worsen if we continue under the current conditions we are in. The fortunate thing is that there are specific things each of us can do to counteract this and ensure we don’t end up in a culture where everyone is emotionally heightened and more likely to be aggressive to certain groups of people.

I’ll explain these in my next article. Read it here.