Abstract
The recent series of papers between Sampaio and Haydu (Behavior and Social Issues 32(1):115–133, 2023a; Behavior and Social Issues 32(1):141–146, 2023b) and Ardila-Sánchez and Hayes (Behavior and Social Issues 32(1):134–140, 2023) on the cultural milieu construct is of critical import for culturo-behavior science. By constructing a revised version of Houmanfar and colleagues’ (Ardila-Sánchez et al., Behavior and Social Issues 28(1):298–315, 2019: Houmanfar, Ardila-Sánchez, & Alavosius, Behavior science perspectives on culture and community, pp. 151–170, Springer, 2020: Houmanfar & Rodrigues, Behavior and Social Issues, 15(1):13–30, 2006: Houmanfar, Rodrigues, & Ward, Behavior and Social Issues 19(1):78–103, 2010) elaborated metacontingency model, Sampaio and Haydu address confusion inherent in the concept of the cultural milieu by separating it into two different components—cultural antecedents and selecting environment variables—with different functional properties. This allows the cultural milieu to be conceptualized more coherently within a behavior-analytic framework, a framework into which the cultural milieu does not quite fit when described in interbehavioral terms. However, given differences in integrated field and contingency logic, an interbehaviorally conceptualized cultural milieu does not belong in any metacontingency model, elaborated or otherwise. The purpose of this paper is to address this issue—the elephant in the field—and confusing aspects of the cultural milieu that Sampaio and Haydu do not address when one considers the elaborated metacontingency model from an interbehavioral perspective. In doing so, I discuss issues with the model warranting attention and the prospect of a unified culturo-behavior science.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Ardila-Sánchez et al. (2020, Fig. 17.2, p. 418) offer a depiction of the EMM that emphasizes bidirectionality between institutional stimuli and interlocked behaviors. Yet, they also describe institutional stimuli causally as “antecedent events influencing the second factor—the interlocks among the behaviors of group members or socio-interlocked behaviors (socio-IBs)” (p. 419).
A larger discussion is outside the scope of this paper, but Ribes-Iñesta’s (2020) contingency field construct—despite its elegance—is not seen as consistent with the current perspective or others aligned with Hayes and Fryling’s (2018, 2023) conceptualization of an integrated field based on Kantor’s (1959) position. Whereas Ribes-Iñesta’s (2020) contingency fields involve interdependent events and patterns, Hayes and Fryling’s (2018, 2023) events involve interacting, convergent factors.
References
Ardila-Sánchez, J. G., & Hayes, L. J. (2023). On the role of philosophical assumptions in conceptual analysis: A reply to (Sampaio & Haydu 2023). Behavior and Social Issues, 32(1), 134–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-023-00128-3
Ardila-Sánchez, J. G., Houmanfar, R. A., & Alavosius, M. P. (2019). A descriptive analysis of the effects of weather disasters on community resilience. Behavior and Social Issues, 28(1), 298–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-019-00015-w
Ardila-Sánchez, J. G., Richling, S. M., Benson, M. L., & Rakos, R. F. (2020). Activism, advocacy, and accompaniment. In T. M. Cihon & M. A. Mattaini (Eds.), Behavior science perspectives on culture and community (pp. 413–436). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45421-0_7
Baum, W. M. (2011). Behaviorism, private events, and the molar view of behavior. The Behavior Analyst, 34(2), 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392249
Cihon, T. M., & Mattaini, M. A. (Eds.) (2020). Behavior science perspectives on culture and community. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45421-0
Fleming, W., & Hayes, L. J. (2021). Relations between description and experimentation in the metacontingency enterprise: An interbehavioral analysis. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 44(2–3), 417–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-021-00286-y
Glenn, S. S. (2004). Individual behavior, culture, and social change. The Behavior Analyst, 27(2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393175
Hayes, L. J., & Fryling, M. J. (2018). Psychological events as integrated fields. The Psychological Record, 68(2), 273–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0274-3
Hayes, L. J., & Fryling, M. J. (2023). Interbehaviorism: A comprehensive guide to the foundations of Kantor’s theory and its applications for modern behavior analysis. Context Press.
Hayes, L. J., Adams, M. A., & Dixon, M. R. (1996). Causal constructs and conceptual confusions. The Psychological Record, 46(1), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395214
Houmanfar, R. A., & Rodrigues, N. J. (2006). The metacontingency and the behavioral contingency: Points of contact and departure. Behavior and Social Issues, 15(1), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v15i1.342
Houmanfar, R. A., Ardila-Sánchez, J. G., & Alavosius, M. P. (2020). Role of cultural milieu in cultural change: Mediating factor in points of contact. In T. M. Cihon & M. A. Mattaini (Eds.), Behavior science perspectives on culture and community (pp. 151–170). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45421-0_7
Houmanfar, R., Rodrigues, N. J., & Smith, G. S. (2009). Role of communication networks in behavioral systems analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 29(3–4), 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608060903092102
Houmanfar, R., Rodrigues, N. J., & Ward, T. A. (2010). Emergence and metacontingency: Points of contact and departure. Behavior and Social Issues, 19(1), 78–103. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v19i0.3065
Kantor, J. R. (1959). Interbehavioral psychology: A sample of scientific system construction (2nd ed.). Principia Press.
Kantor, J. R. (1982). Cultural psychology. Principia Press.
Ribes-Iñesta, E. (2020). A theory of behavior or a theory of psychology? In D. Zilio & K. Carrara (Eds.), Contemporary behaviorism in debate (pp. 273–313). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77395-3
Sampaio, A. A. S., & Haydu, V. B. (2023a). Cultural milieu and group-rules in an elaborated account of metacontingencies: Conceptual analysis and an illustration in a COVID-19 psychological support project. Behavior and Social Issues, 32(1), 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-023-00126-5
Sampaio, A. A. S., & Haydu, V. B. (2023b). Metacontingency terminology, philosophical assumptions, and the scientific dialogue: A response to Ardila-Sánchez and Hayes (2023). Behavior and Social Issues, 32(1), 141–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-023-00131-8
Skinner, B. F. (1981). How to discover what you have to say—a talk to students. The Behavior Analyst, 4(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391847
Zilio, D. (2019). On the function of science: An overview of 30 years of publications on metacontingency. Behavior and Social Issues, 28(1), 46–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-019-00006-x
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Jamiika Thomas for her help editing this paper. I would also like to thank Linda Hayes for her editing, thoughtful feedback, and guidance on this paper. My current affiliation is now with GOALS for Autism.
Funding
This research was not supported by any federal or non-federal funding.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Ethics approval
Not applicable. Approval was not necessary for this paper.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Fleming, W. The Elephant in the Field. Behav. Soc. Iss. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-024-00160-x
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-024-00160-x