No abstract

No abstract

This article notes that the particulars of interest in behavior analysis are acts rather than organisms, and it discusses some consequences of this choice of particulars. Emphasis is placed on the fact that contingencies relate acts to contextual variables and therefore define units that comprise antecedents, acts, and consequences. The transdermal nature of these units is explained, as is the consequent relevance of behavior analysis to developments in psychology that have attempted to unite organism and environment in an undijferentiated whole.

Lee, V. L. The operant as a class of responses. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1981.22, 215-221.This paper considers some recent objections to the concept of the operant. These objections were, first, that "action" is more fundamental than "operant" and, second, that the term 'operant' depends for its application on the knowledge of behavior implicit in common language. The present paper outlines the concept of the operant as a class of responses. In doing so, it considers the distinctions between responses and response classes (operants) and between descriptive operants and functional operants. These distinctions suggest that "action" is not m-re fundamental than "operant" and that although descriptive operants originate in common knowledge, functional operants never do. The paper concludes that the concept of the operant is basic to behavior theory, and must be retained.

This paper considers two different meanings of the word behavior and the implications of these meanings for how we talk about behavior. The paper argues that discussions about social justice issues would be more effective if these implications were fully grasped. The paper begins by discussing the etymologically-original meaning of behavior, which equates the word with conduct. A second meaning of behavior, introduced when early psychologists attempted to make usage of behavior in psychology consistent with its usage in other sciences, is then discussed. The paper shows that behavior analysts tacitly accept this second meaning when they theorize about operant data. Acceptance is illustrated by discussing the traditional emphasis on body movements ahead of effects and the concept of operant behavior. The paper then reiterates Skinner's emphasis on the central place of data in developing a conceptual framework. It argues that operant data represent changes in the state of various objects that depend on an object and on a participant, among other constituents, which is consistent with the implications of the etymologically-original meaning of behavior. The paper concludes that reformulating behavior analysis to make its theoretical claims consistent with the etymologically-original meaning of behavior would make discussions about social justice issues considerably more widely accessible.Discussions about behavior and social issues inevitably use the word behavior. When students read these discussions, they presume they are reading about actions, such as marching in protest, baking bread, or casting a vote. If contributors to the discussions were asked to list examples of behavior, they would list similar examples.As students continue to read, they realize that the word behavior has a specialized meaning in many of these discussions. The students read of stimuli shaping behavior, of the environment controlling behavior, and of behavior being emitted by organisms, and they discover that behavior consists of responses that are distinguished from stimuli. Most students enjoy reading about behavior and social issues, but many students object to these ways of talking about the things people do. Why do behaviorists talk in these ways?