Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On Power and Freedom: Extending the Definition of Coercion

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Perspectives on Behavior Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Defining coercion has been a topic of interest to behavior analysts from time to time. Given the more and more subtle influence strategies that technology has enabled, it is time to revisit these definitions. This article examines the definitions of power, freedom, and coercion in behavior analysis, comparing them to philosophical views of power, freedom, and coercion. Two extensions to the definition of coercion are suggested. First, definitions could include as coercive the removal of resources needed to generate the responses required to obtain reinforcement, or in some cases, the neglect to provide these resources. Second, choice architecture systems that are not transparent to the individuals being influenced and for which their consent has not been provided could be considered to be coercive. Implications of these extensions are discussed, including the need to examine behavior management methods for interactions considered to be coercive under the new definitions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Al-Jenaibi, B. (2012). The scope and impact of workplace diversity in the United Arab Emirates: A preliminary study. Geografia Online: Malaysia Journal of Society & Space, 8(1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, S. (2010). The enforcement approach to coercion. Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy, 5, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.26556/jesp.v5i1.47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E. (2017). The problem of equality from a political economy perspective. In D. Sobel, P. Vallentyne, & S. Wall (Eds.), Oxford studies in political philosophy (Vol. 3, pp. 36–57). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreou, A., Venkatadri, G., Goga, O., Gummadi, K. P., Loiseau, P., & Mislove, A. (2018, February). Investigating ad transparency mechanisms in social media: A case study of Facebook’s explanations. Paper presented at the Network and Distributed Systems Security (NDSS) Symposium, San Diego, CA. 10.14722/ndss.2018.23191

  • Archard, D. (1990). Paternalism defined. Analysis, 50, 36–42. https://doi.org/10.2307/3328207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arvey, R. D., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1980). Punishment in organizations: A review, propositions, and research suggestions. Academy of Management Review, 5, 123–132. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1980.4288937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azrin, N. H., & Holz, W. C. (1966). Punishment. In W. K. Honig (Ed.), Operant behavior: Areas of research and application (pp. 380–447). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baethge, A., Vahle-Hinz, T., Schulte-Braucks, J., & van Dyck, R. (2018). A matter of time? Challenging and hindering effects of time pressure on work engagement. Work and Stress, 32, 228–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2017.1415998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2006). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, R. (2014). From regulation to behavior change: Giving the nudge the third degree. Modern Law Review, 77, 831–857. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, W. M. (2017). Understanding behaviorism: Behavior, culture, and evolution (3rd ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlin, I. (1969). Four essays on liberty. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bieber, F. (2018). Is nationalism on the rise? Assessing global trends. Ethnopolitics, 17(5), 519–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2018.1532633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. M. (1974). On the nature of organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brambury, B. (2017, October 13). Data mining firm behind Trump election built psychological profiles of nearly every American voter. CBC Radio Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode-359-harvey-weinstein-a-stock-market-for-sneakers-trump-s-data-mining-the-curious-incident-more-1.4348278/data-mining-firm-behind-trump-election-built-psychological-profiles-of-nearly-every-american-voter-1.4348283. Accessed 5 July 2019.

  • Carlsmith, K. M. (2006). The roles of retribution and utility in determining punishment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 437–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.06.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catania, A. C. (1980). Freedom of choice: A behavioral analysis. Psychology of Learning & Motivation, 14, 97–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60160-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cerutti, D., & Catania, A. C. (1997). Pigeons’ preference for free choice: Number of keys versus key area. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 349–356. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1997.68-349.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, L. W., & Sakara, M. (2018). Social decoys: Leveraging choice architecture to alter social preferences. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 115(2), 206–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiang, Y.-S. (2008). A path toward fairness: Preferential association and the evolution of strategies in the ultimatum game. Rationality & Society, 20, 173–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463108089544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, H. L., & Filipczak, J. (1971). A new learning environment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2003). Raising voice, risking retaliation: Events following interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.8.4.247.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cratsley, K. (2015). Nudges and coercion: Conceptual, empirical, and normative considerations. Monash Bioethics Review, 33, 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-015-0036-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Credo, K. R., Cox, S. S., Matherne, C. F., & Lanier, P. A. (2016). Can organizational practices inadvertently silence potential whistleblowers? American Journal of Management, 16(3), 9. 10.33423/ajm.v16i3.1868

  • Croucher, S. (2018, July 31). Bob Woodward will publish “harrowing” Trump book on 9/11/. Retrieved from https://www.newsweek.com/bob-woodward-donald-trump-book-1049281. Accessed 1 Oct 2018.

  • Darley, J. M. (2009). Morality in the law: The psychological foundations of citizens’ desires to punish transgressions. Annual Review of Law & Social Science, 5, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.4.110707.172335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darwall, S. L. (2018). Philosophical ethics: An historical and contemporary introduction. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Fernandes, R. C., & Dittrich, A. (2018). Expanding the behavior-analytic meanings of “freedom”: The contributions of Israel Goldiamond. Behavior & Social Issues, 27, 4–19. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v27i0.8248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delprato, D. J. (2002). Countercontrol in behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 25, 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392057.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • DeMaria, W., & Jan, C. (1997). Eating its own: The whistleblower's organization in vendetta mode. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 32(1), 37–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1839-4655.1997.tb01291.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dittrich, A. (2010). Sentidos possíveis de “liberdade” no behaviorismo radical. In M. M. C. Hübner, M. R. Garcia, P. R. Abreu, E. N. P. Cillo, & P. B. Faleiros (Eds.), Sobre comportamento e cognição, Análise experimental do comportamento, cultura, questões conceituais e filosóficas (Vol. 25, pp. 13–17). Santo Andre: ESETec.

  • Dworkin, G. (2014). Paternalism. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/win2015/entries/paternalism. Accessed 5 Oct 2018.

  • French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies of social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glazerman, S., Nichols-Barrer, I., Valant, J., Chandler, J., & Burnett, A. (2018). Nudging parents to choose better schools: The importance of school choice architecture (Working Paper 64). Mathematica Policy Research. Retrieved from https://www.mathematica-mpr.com/our-publications-and-findings/publications/nudging-parents-to-choose-better-schools-the-importance-of-school-choice-architecture. Accessed 25 Oct 2019.

  • Goffman, E. (1961). On the characteristics of total institutions. In A. Etzioni (Ed.), A sociological reader on complex organizations (2nd ed., pp. 312–338). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldiamond, I. (1975). Alternative sets as a framework for behavioral formulations and research. Behaviorism, 3, 49–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldiamond, I. (1976). Protection of human subjects and patients: A social contingency analysis of distinctions between research and practice, and its implications. Behaviorism, 4, 1–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldiamond, I. (2002). Classic article: Toward a Constructional approach to social problems: Ethical and constitutional issues raised by applied behavior analysis. Behavior & Social Issues, 11, 108–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goltz, S. M. (2003a). Considering political behavior in organizations. The Behavior Analyst Today, 4(3), 354–366. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goltz, S. M. (2003b). Toward an operant model of power in organizations. The Behavior Analyst, 26, 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392071.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Goltz, S. M. (2005). Career expectations vs. experiences: The case of academic women. Journal of Business & Management, 11(2), 49–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goltz, S. M. (2013). A behavior analysis of individuals' use of the fairness heuristic when interacting with groups and organizations. The Behavior Analyst, 33, 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2012.757993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, C. N. (1976). A longitudinal investigation of performance-reinforcement leader behavior and subordinate satisfaction and performance. Midwest Academy of Management Proceedings, 157–185.

  • Hamner, W. C., & Organ, D. W. (1978). Organizational behavior: An applied psychological approach. Dallas: Business Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, P. G. (2016). The definition of nudge and libertarian paternalism: Does the hand fit the glove? European Journal of Risk Regulation, 7(1), 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1867299X00005468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, J. G., & Schuler, R. S. (1976). Leader reward and sanctions behavior relations with criteria in a large public utility (Unpublished ms.). Department of Administrative Sciences, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, IL.

  • Jiang, H., Chen, Y., Sun, P., & Yang, J. (2017). The relationship between authoritarian leadership and employees’ deviant workplace behaviors: The mediating effects of psychological contract violation and organizational cynicism. Frontiers of Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00732.

  • King, M. L. (1997). Address to MIA Mass Meeting at Holt Street Baptist Church. In C. Carson et al. (Eds.), The papers of Martin Luther King, Jr.: Birth of a new age (Vol. 3, pp. 199–201). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Komaki, J. (1986). Applied behavior analysis and organizational behavior: Reciprocal influence of the two fields. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 297–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Komaki, J., Desselles, M. L., & Bowman, E. D. (1989). Definitely not a breeze: Extending an operant model of effective supervision to teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 522–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konow, J. (2003). Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. Journal of Economic Literature, 41(December), 1188–1239. Retrieved from https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/002205103771800013. Accessed 20 Oct 2018.

  • Lammers, J., Stoker, J. I., & Stapel, D. A. (2009). Differentiating social and personal power. Psychological Science, 20, 1543–1549. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000388.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Li, C., Stellman, J., Patel, N., & Dalton, F. (2016). Improving capacity and consent to treatment recording in psychiatric inpatient wards: A multi-centre quality improvement project. BMJ Open Quality. 5(1): u208344.w4094 .

  • Lomas, N. (2018). Facebook’s election interference problem exponentially worse on eve of midterms study suggests. Techcrunch.com . Retrieved from https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/05/facebooks-election-interference-problem-exponentially-worse-on-eve-of-midterms-study-suggests/. Accessed 5 June 2019.

  • Lynch, R. A. (2014). Foucault’s theory of power. In D. Taylor (Ed.), Michel Foucault: Key concepts (pp. 13–26). Durham: Acumen.

  • Mallory, W. A., & Russell, R. L. (1981). Behavior modification as a value-laden technology: Implications for selection of intervention strategies with developmentally handicapped clients. Behaviorists for Social Action Journal, 3, 14–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, T. (2014). Foucault's conception of freedom. In D. Taylor (Ed.), Michel Foucault: Key concepts (pp. 71–83). Durham: Acumen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moouman, M., van Dijk, W. W., Ellemers, N., & van Dijk, E. (2015). Why leaders punish: A power perspective. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 109, 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munscher, R., Vetter, M., & Scheuerle, T. (2016). A review and taxonomy of choice architecture techniques. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29(5), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naidu, S., Nyarko, Y., & Wang, S. Y. (2016). Monoposony power in migrant labor markets: Evidence from the United Arab Emirates. Journal of Political Economy, 124(6), 1735–1792. https://doi.org/10.1086/688877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1986). Retaliation against whistle blowers: Predictors and effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 137–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. (2011). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parke, R. D. (1972). Some effects of punishment on children's behavior. In W. W. Hartup (Ed.), The young child: Reviews of research (Vol. 2, pp. 129–156). Washington DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield.

  • Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D., Grover, R. A., & Huber, V. L. (1984). Situational moderators of leader reward and punishment behavior: Fact or fiction? Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 34, 21–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D., & Skov, R. (1982). Effects of leader contingent and noncontingent reward and punishment behaviors on subordinate performance and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 810–821.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Quigley, M. (2014). Are health nudges coercive? Monash Bioethics Review, 32, 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-014-0008-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Raven, B. H., & French, J. R. P. (1958). Legitimate power, coercive power, and observability in social influence. Sociometry, 21, 83–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rees, E., & Hardy, J. (2003). Novel consent process for research in dying patients unable to give consent. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 327(7408), 198. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7408.198.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Reina, C. S., Rogers, K. M., Peterson, S. J., Byron, K., & Hom, P. W. (2018). Quitting the boss? The role of manager influence tactics and employee emotional engagement in voluntary turnover. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051817709007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, S. C. (2015). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Applying Rawlsian ethics in data mining marketing. Journal of Media Ethics, 30(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/08900523.2014.985297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rost, K. A., Hemmes, N. S., & Alvero, A. M. (2014). Effects of the relative values of alternatives on preference for free-choice in humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 102, 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saghai, Y. (2013). Salvaging the concept of nudge. Journal of Medical Ethics, 39(8), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2012-100727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidman, M. (1989). Coercion and its fallout. Boston: Authors Cooperative.

  • Sidman, M. (1993). Reflections on behavior analysis and coercion. Behavior & Social Issues, 3, 75–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidman, M. (2001). Coercion and its fallout (2nd ed.). Boston: Authors Cooperative.

  • Sims, H. P. (1980). Further thoughts on punishment in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 5, 133–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sims, H. P., & Szalagyi, A. D. (1978). A causal analysis of leader behavior over three different time lags. Eastern Academy of Management Proceedings. 77–81.

  • Skaggs, B. C., Manz, C. C., Lyle, M. C. B., & Pearce, C. L. (2018). On the folly of punishing A while hoping for A: Exploring punishment in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(6), 812–815. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1948). Walden two. Toronto: Macmillan.

  • Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York, NY: Macmillan.

  • Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. Middlesex, UK: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1978). Reflections on behaviorism and society. Englewood Clifss, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1982). Contrived reinforcement. The Behavior Analyst, 5, 3–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, R. L. (1964). Punishment. American Psychologist, 19, 239–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szilagyi, A. D. (1979). Causal inference between leader reward behavior and subordinate goal attainment, absenteeism, and work satisfaction (Working Paper). Houston, TX: University of Houston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, D. (2014). Introduction: Power, freedom and subjectivity. In D. Taylor (Ed.), Michel Foucault: Key concepts (pp. 1–9). Durham: Acumen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. London, USA: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Beest, I., & Van Dijk, E. (2007). Self-interest and fairness in coalition formation: A social utility approach to understanding partner selection and payoff allocations in groups. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 132–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280701595354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Prooijen, J. W., Coffeng, J., & Vermeer, M. (2014). Power and retributive justice: How trait information influences the fairness of punishment among power holders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 190–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.10.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L., & Murnighan, J. K. (2017). The dynamics of punishment and trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 1385–1402. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000178.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wendler, D. (2012). Protecting subjects who cannot give consent: Toward a better standard for “minimal” risks. The Hastings Center Report. 35(5), 37–43.

  • Wertheimer, A. (1993). A philosophical examination of coercion for mental health issues. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 11, 239–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiltermuth, S. S., & Flynn, F. J. (2013). Power, moral clarity, and punishment in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1002–1023. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, W. S. (1979). Ethics for behaviorists. Behavior Analyst, 2(2), 9–15.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, B. (2018). Fear: Trump in the White House. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolman, S., & Bishop, M. (2008). Down on the farm and barefoot in the kitchen: Farm labour and domestic labour as forms of servitude. Development Southern Africa, 24(5), 595–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamagishi, T., Horita, Y., Takagishi, H., Shinada, M., Tanida, S., & Cook, K. S. (2009). The private rejection of unfair offers and emotional commitment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 11520–11523. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900636106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeung, K. (2012). Nudge as fudge. Modern Law Review, 75, 122–148.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, 49931, USA

    Sonia M. Goltz

Authors
  1. Sonia M. Goltz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sonia M. Goltz.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The Author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Goltz, S.M. On Power and Freedom: Extending the Definition of Coercion. Perspect Behav Sci 43, 137–156 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-019-00240-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-019-00240-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation