Where Have All the Behaviorists Gone?

Abstract

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.

The Place of the Human Subject in the Operant Laboratory

“…What we will have to say about these efforts to reinterpret human operant behavior in cognitive terms is not new. The matter has been treated in some detail bv other writers who have noted and deplored this growing trend (Branch & Malagodi, 1980;Rachlin, 1977 Harzem, Lowe, and Bagshaw (1978) and Lowe (1979), human subjects may verbally describe the contingencies to themselves and such formulations may then serve as stimuli controlling the rate of the reinforced response. One source of these verbalizations are instructions provided by the experimenter, but even when information about the contingencies is not provided, the human subject develops his or her own description of response-reinforcer relationships.…”

Some reflections on 25 years of the association for behavior analysis: Past, present, and future

“…APA has lost much of its tie to science in spite of its stated mission "to advance psychology as a science and profession" and of its attempts to promote psychology as a science (see Crawford, 1992). The EC has been concerned that ABXs growth should not threaten its scientific base, a concern expressed by the broader association as well (Branch & Malagodi, 1980;Edelstein, 1982;Fraley, 1981;Leigland, 1984;Michael, 1979;Morris, 1992;Pierce & Epling, 1980;Skinner, 1983).…”

Separate Disciplines: The Study of Behavior and the Study of the Psyche

“…This approach not only runs counter to Branch and Malagodi's (1980) admonition in discussing the importance of controls over the scientist's verbal behavior, that it is not all right "to talk funny as long as you do the right things" (p. 33), but also duplicates the current situation in psychology, a curious duplication since a good portion of Epstein's article recounts the struggles ofbehaviorists to change psychology, or leave 3For an extended discussion on multiple controls over the scientist's behavior, especially audience control in relation to the subjective-objective distinction, see Vargas (1982 Michael (1980), sometime back, in his Association for Behavior Analysis presidential address, and recently Hineline (1984) and Leigland (1984) Hineline (1984) points out that the interpretation of behavioral phenomena in cognitive terms is incompatible with a behavioristic one, and probably always will be, for the frameworks of interpretation are fundamentally opposed. Leigland (1984) responds to Skinner's question whether the experimental analysis of behavior can rescue psychology by questioning in turn whether such a rescue can ensue from laboratory-based, experimental work.…”

“…Both Morse and Bruns (1983) and Branch and Malagodi (1980) point out that in many cases no amount or kind ofgraduate training prevents the drift toward mentalism in a faculty member subjected to the continuous audience control of a cognitive community. As Branch and Malagodi (1980) put it, a behavioral faculty member, isolated among assorted cognitive psychologists, "eventually succumbs to the reinforcement and punishment practices of the immediate verbal community" (p. 36). Such persons usually rationalize their conceptual drifts-should students raise the question-by describing those drifts as "intellectual growth.…”