“Behavior” Does Not Mean “Behavior of the Organism”: Why Conceptual Revision is Needed in Behavior Analysis

Abstract

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?

The History and Current Status of Behavior and Social Issues: 1978–2016

“…A majority of these articles focus on conceptual clarifications, epistemology, behavior analysis as a natural science, and selection at the cultural level (e.g., Hayes & Hayes, 1992;Kolbe, 1978;Lee, 1999;Malott, 1992;Ulman, 1979) with an emphasis, especially in recent years, on exploring and elaborating testable frameworks for behavior-analytic-and particularly behavioral systems-approaches to organizations, communities, and cultures (e.g., Glenn, 1989;Houmanfar & Rodrigues, 2006;Krispin, 2016;Todorov, 2013). Although these articles are not focused on a specific social issue, many are focused on developing pragmatic and conceptually-consistent approaches for behavior analysts to impact large-scale issues.…”

Comportamento e cultura na perspectiva da análise do comportamento

“…Neste contexto, foram publicados inúmeros trabalhos cujo foco de interesse são fenômenos sociais humanos complexos e que reconhecem que tal foco envolve necessariamente buscar soluções para dificuldades conceituais e metodológicas enfrentadas pela análise do comportamento neste âmbito (ver, por exemplo, Dinsmoor, 1992;Glenn, 1985Glenn, , 1986Glenn, , 1988Glenn, , 1991Glenn & Malagodi, 1991;Guerin, 1992aGuerin, , 1992bKunkel, 1983Kunkel, , 1985Kunkel, , 1986Lamal, 1991Lamal, , 1997Lee, 1999;Lloyd, 1985;Malagodi;Malagodi & Jackson, 1989;Mattaini, 2004;Mattaini & Thyer, 2002). No Brasil, ocorreu movimento semelhante, na direção de um crescente número de trabalhos conceituais e empíricos orientados pela análise do comportamento com foco em questões sociais e na cultura (Abreu, 1990;Alves, 2006;Amorim, 2010;Andery, 1990Andery, , 1993aAndery, , 1993bAndery, , 1997aAndery, , 1997bAndery, , 2001aAndery, Micheletto & Sério, 2005;Andery & Sério, 1997a, 1997b, 1997cBrocal, 2010;Bullerjhann, 2009;Caldas, 2009;Costa, 2001;Dittrich & Abib, 2004;Echague, 2006;Faleiros, 2002;…”

BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS AND ECOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE. A REVIEW OF HARRY HEFT'SECOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY IN CONTEXT

“…Whereas an unbiased observer can see plainly enough that ''The bee is laying by honey in its home.'' (p. 77; see Moore, 1983; on Holt and teleological behaviorism, see Tonneau, 2008, on Holt, 1915a For Holt, behavior was an ''action-unit'' bounded by an initiation and a cessation that defined an achievement (e.g., laying by honey; see Lee, 1995Lee, , 1998.…”

“…The systems are alike in their nonmediational and nonrepresentational accounts of the relations between organisms and their environments; in their opposition to physiological reductionism; and in their molar perspectives on behavior. More subtle affinities may also be found in their forms of phenomenology (e.g., Giorgi, 1970;Merleau-Ponty, 1962; see also Day, 1969b;Delprato, 2006;Giorgi, 1975;Kvale & Grenness, 1967); appreciation of developmental systems theory (e.g., Moore, 2001;Oyama, 2000; see also Lickliter, 2000;Midgley & Morris, 1992;Schneider, 2007); focus on action as their units of analysis (i.e., on what gets done or accomplished; see Lee, 1995Lee, , 1998; and a systems or integrated-field perspective (see Delprato, 1987;Midgley & Morris, 1988;Timberlake, 1993).…”