Many of the world's current problems are the result of behavior, and traditional appeals to mental determinants are again proving inadequate. The time for a behavioristic alternative appears ripe, yet many behaviorists seem to be becoming less behavioristic and more mentalistic. When confronted with the complexity of human behavior many are resorting to the intellectual comfort and safety of mentalism. A recent example of this tendency (Schwartz et al, 1978) is presented and discussed. Additionally, speculations regarding the origins of the resurgence of mentalism are presented, and it is proposed that arranging histories which provide for more rigorous and lasting control of verbal behavior about behavior may serve to improve the situation.

Our culture at large continues many practices that work against the well-being of its members and its chances for survival. Our discipline has failed to realize its potential for contributing to the understanding of these practices and to the generation of solutions. This failure of realization is in part a consequence of the general failure of behavior analysts to view social and cultural analysis as a fundamental component of radical behaviorism. This omission is related to three prevailing practices of our discipline. First, radical behaviorism is characteristically defined as a "philosophy of science," and its concerns are ordinarily restricted to certain epistemological issues. Second, theoretical extensions to social and cultural phenomena too often depend solely upon principles derived from the analysis of behavior. Third, little attention has been directed at examining the relationships that do, or that should, exist between our discipline and related sciences. These practices themselves are attributed to certain features of the history of our field. Two general remedies for this situation are suggested: first, that radical behaviorism be treated as a comprehensive world view in which epistemological, psychological, and cultural analyses constitute interdependent components; second, that principles derived from compatible social-science disciplines be incorporated into radical behaviorism.

Rats' lever pressing produced tokens according to a 20-response fixed-ratio schedule. Sequences of token schedules were reinforced under a second-order schedule by presentation of periods when tokens could be exchanged for food pellets. When the exchange period schedule was a six-response fixed ratio, patterns of completing the component token schedules were bivalued, with relatively long and frequent pauses marking the initiation of each new sequence. Altering the exchange period schedule to a six-response variable ratio resulted in sharp reductions in the frequency and duration of these initial pauses, and increases in overall rates of lever pressing. These results are comparable to those ordinarily obtained under simple fixed-ratio and variable-ratio schedules.Key words: second-order schedules, token reinforcement, variable-ratio schedules, fixedratio schedules, lever pressing, ratsUnder second-order chained and brief-stimulus schedules, behavior that satisfies the requirements of a component schedule is treated as a unitary response that is itself reinforced according to some schedule of reinforcement (cf. Kelleher, 1966). Under second-order token schedules, performance within component schedules of token delivery is reinforced according to the schedule for presenting the opportunity to exchange tokens for (usually) food (Malagodi, Webbe, and Waddell, 1975). Operationally, the delivery of tokens may be likened to brief presentations of exteroceptive stimuli, as in second-order brief-stimulus schedules, or, alternatively, the accumulation of tokens may be likened to successive changes in discriminative stimuli as in second-order chained schedules. Direct experimental comparisons of these three forms of second-order schedules have not been reported, but performance under token schedules most often resembles brief-stimulus rather than chained schedule performance (Malagodi et al., 1975b;Waddell, Leander, Webbe, and Malagodi, 1972).Because the completion of component schedules may be conditionable with respect to second-order schedule dependencies, second-order schedules have become important procedures for examining the generality of the effects of variables that contribute to the rates and patterns characteristic of schedule-controlled behavior in general (e.g., Davison, 1969;Marr, 1971; see Gollub, 1977 for review). The use of second-order schedules within such an analytical context provides a means for extending the generality of schedule processes and the unitary effects of schedule variables from simple to complex behavioral situations (cf. Morse, 1966). For example, under simple fixedratio (FR) and fixed-interval (FI) schedules, the positive, direct relationship between postreinforcer pause duration and schedule parameter value (Felton and Lyon, 1966;Schneider, 1969) is replicated under second-order FR and Fl schedules (Malagodi; 1967b, c;Waddell et al., 1972). Under simple fixed schedules at parameter values that generate marked postreinforcer pauses, changing the schedule dependency from fixed to vari...

THREE STRATEGIC SUGGESTIONS ARE OFFERED TO BEHAVIOR ANALYSTS WHO ARE CONCERNED WITH EXTENDING THE INTERESTS OF OUR DISCIPLINE INTO DOMAINS TRADITIONALLY ASSIGNED TO THE SOCIAL SCIENCES: (1) to expand our world-view perspectives beyond the boundaries commonly accepted by psychologists in general; (2) to build a cultural analytic framework upon the foundations we have developed for the study of individuals; and (3) to study the works of those social scientists whose views are generally compatible with, and complementary to, our own. Sociologist C. Wright Mills' distinction between troubles and issues and anthropologist Marvin Harris's principles of cultural materialism are related to topics raised by these three strategies. The pervasiveness of the "psychocentric" world view within psychology and the social sciences, and throughout our culture at large, is discussed from the points of view of Skinner, Mills, and Harris. It is suggested that a thorough commitment to radical behaviorism, and continuation of interaction between radical behaviorism and cultural materialism, are necessary for maintaining and extending an issues orientation within the discipline of behavior analysis and for guarding against dilutions and subversions of that orientation by "deviation-dampening" contingencies that exist in our profession and in our culture at large.

No abstract