Advertisement

The Behavior Analyst

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 13–24 | Cite as

Contingency Horizon: on Private Events and the Analysis of Behavior

  • Sam Leigland
Original Research

Abstract

Skinner’s radical behaviorism incorporates private events as biologically based phenomena that may play a functional role with respect to other (overt) behavioral phenomena. Skinner proposed four types of contingencies, here collectively termed the contingency horizon, which enable certain functional relations between private events and verbal behavior. The adequacy and necessity of this position has met renewed challenges from Rachlin’s teleological behaviorism and Baum’s molar behaviorism, both of which argue that all “mental” phenomena and terminology may be explained by overt behavior and environment–behavior contingencies extended in time. A number of lines of evidence are presented in making a case for the functional characteristics of private events, including published research from behavior analysis and general experimental psychology, as well as verbal behavior from a participant in the debate. An integrated perspective is offered that involves a multiscaled analysis of interacting public behaviors and private events.

Keywords

Private events Radical behaviorism Teleological behaviorism Molar behaviorism 

References

  1. Alvero, A. M., & Austin, J. (2006). An implementation of protocol analysis and the silent dog method in the area of behavioral safety. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 22, 61–79.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Arntzen, E., Halstadtro, L.-B., & Halstadtro, M. (2009). The ‘silent dog’ method: Analyzing the impact of self-generated rules when teaching different computer chains to boys with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 25, 51–66.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Baum, W. M. (2002). From molecular to molar: A paradigm shift in behavior analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78, 95–116.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baum, W. M. (2005). Understanding behaviorism: Behavior, culture, and evolution (2nd ed.). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Baum, W. M. (2011a). Behaviorism, private events, and the molar view of behavior. The Behavior Analyst, 34, 185–200.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Baum, W. M. (2011b). Evasion, private events, and pragmatism: A reply to Moore’s response to my review of Conceptual Foundations of Radical Behaviorism. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 95, 141–144.PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baum, W. M. (2011c). No need for private events in a science of behavior: Response to commentaries. The Behavior Analyst, 34, 237–244.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Baum, W. M. (2011d). What is radical behaviorism? A review of Jay Moore’s conceptual foundations of radical behaviorism. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 95, 119–126.PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Biglan, A. (2009). Increasing psychological flexibility to influence cultural evolution. Behavior and Social Issues, 18, 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Biglan, A., & Hinds, E. (2009). Evolving prosocial and sustainable neighborhoods and communities. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 169–196. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663939/pdf/nihms84433.pdf. doi: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153526.
  11. Biglan, A., Hayes, S. C., & Pistorello, J. (2008). Acceptance and commitment: Implications for prevention science. Prevention Science, 9, 139–152.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cabello, F., Luciano, C., Gomez, I., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). Human schedule performance, protocol analysis, and the “silent dog” methodology. The Psychological Record, 54, 405–422.Google Scholar
  13. Calkin, A. B. (2002). Inner behavior: Empirical investigations of private events. The Behavior Analyst, 25, 255–259.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Calkin, A. B. (2009). An examination of inner (private) and outer (public) behaviors. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 10, 61–75.Google Scholar
  15. Catania, A. C. (2011). On Baum’s public claim that he has no significant private events. The Behavior Analyst, 34, 227–236.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Chiesa, M. (1994). Radical behaviorism: The philosophy and the science. Boston: Authors Cooperative.Google Scholar
  17. DaSilva, S. P., & Lattal, K. A. (2010). Why pigeons say what they do: Reinforcer magnitude and response requirement effects on say responding in say-do correspondence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 93, 395–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Day, W. F. (1983/1992). On the difference between radical and methodological behaviorism. Behaviorism, 11, 89–102. (Reprinted in S. Leigland (Ed.), (1992). Radical behaviorism: Willard Day on psychology and philosophy (pp. 61–71). Reno, NV: Context Press.)Google Scholar
  19. Day, W. F. (1992a). Analyzing verbal behavior under the control of private events. In S. Leigland (Ed.), Radical behaviorism: Willard Day on psychology and philosophy (pp. 171–175). Reno: Context.Google Scholar
  20. Day, W. F. (1992b). Methodological problems in the analysis verbal behavior controlled by private events: Some unusual recommendations. In S. Leigland (Ed.), Radical behaviorism: Willard Day on psychology and philosophy (pp. 165–170). Reno: Context.Google Scholar
  21. Dougher, M. J. (2013). Behaviorisms and private events. The Behavior Analyst, 36, 223–227.Google Scholar
  22. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge: Bradford Books/MIT.Google Scholar
  23. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (revised ed.). Cambridge: Bradford books/MIT.Google Scholar
  24. Garcia, A., & Benjumea, S. (2006). The emergence of symmetry in a conditional discrimination task using different responses as proprioceptive samples in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 86, 65–80.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hayes, S. C. (1986). The case of the silent dog: A review of Ericsson and Simon’s protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45, 351–363.PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hayes, S. C., & Brownstein, A. J. (1986). Mentalism, behavior–behavior relations, and a behavior-analytic view of the purposes of science. The Behavior Analyst, 9, 175–190.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hayes, S. C., White, D., & Bissett, R. T. (1998). Protocol analysis and the “silent dog” method of analyzing the impact of self-generated rules. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 15, 57–63.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and commitment therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  29. Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (Eds.). (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.Google Scholar
  30. Hayes, S. C., Bissett, R., Roget, N., Padilla, M., Kohlenberg, B. S., Fisher, G., Masuda, A., Pistorello, J., Rye, A. K., Berry, K., & Niccolls, R. (2004). The impact of acceptance and commitment training and multicultural training on the stigmatizing attitudes and professional burnout of substance abuse counselors. Behavior Therapy, 35, 821–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006). Acceptance and commitment therapy: Model, processes and outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 1–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K., & Wilson, K. G. (2014). Acceptance and commitment therapy: The process and practice of mindful change (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  33. Hineline, P. N. (2001). Beyond the molar-molecular distinction: We need multiscaled analyses. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 75, 342–347.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hineline, P. N. (2011). Private versus inner in multiscaled interpretation. The Behavior Analyst, 34, 221–226.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Keenan, M. (1997). ‘W’-ing: Teaching exercises for radical behaviourists. In K. Dillenburger, M. F. O’Reilly, & M. Keenan (Eds.), Advances in behaviour analysis (pp. 236–272). Dublin: University College Dublin Press.Google Scholar
  36. Lattal, K. A., & Doepke, K. J. (2001). Correspondence as conditional stimulus control: Insights from experiments with pigeons. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 127–144.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leigland, S. (Ed.). (1992). Radical behaviorism: Willard Day on psychology and philosophy. Reno: Context.Google Scholar
  38. Leigland, S. (1996). The functional analysis of psychological terms: In defense of a research project. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 13, 105–122.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Leigland, S. (1997). Systems and theories in behavior analytic science: An overview of alternatives. In L. J. Hayes & P. M. Ghezzi (Eds.), Investigations in behavioral epistemology (pp. 11–31). Reno: Context.Google Scholar
  40. Leigland, S. (1998). Radical behaviorism and the clarification of causality, constructs, and confusions: A reply to Hayes, Adams, and Dixon. The Psychological Record, 48, 423–437.Google Scholar
  41. Leigland, S. (2006). Science and human behavior: A review of William Baum’s understanding behaviorism: Behavior, culture, and evolution (2nd ed.). The Behavior Analyst, 29, 279–287.PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Leigland, S. (2009). A comprehensive science: A review of Moore’s conceptual foundations of radical behaviorism. The Behavior Analyst, 32, 243–253.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Leigland, S. (2010). Functions of research in radical behaviorism for the further development of behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 33, 207–222.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Lloyd, K. E. (2002). A review of correspondence training: Suggestions for revival. The Behavior Analyst, 25, 57–73.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Lubinski, D., & Thompson, T. (1987). An animal model of the interpersonal communication of interoceptive (private) states. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 48, 1–15.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Marr, M. J. (2011). Has radical behaviorism lost its right to privacy? The Behavior Analyst, 34, 213–219.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Moore, J. (2008). Conceptual foundations of radical behaviorism. Cornwall-on-Hudson: Sloan.Google Scholar
  48. Moore, J. (2011). A review of Baum’s review of conceptual foundations of radical behaviorism. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 95, 127–140.PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Neuringer, A. (1984). Melioration and self-experimentation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 42, 397–406.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Neuringer, A. (1991a). Behaviorism: Methodological, radical, assertive, skeptical, ethological, modest, humble, and evolving. The Behavior Analyst, 14, 43–47.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Neuringer, A. (1991b). Humble behaviorism. The Behavior Analyst, 14, 1–13.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Okouchi, H. (2006). An experimental analysis of another privacy. The Psychological Record, 56, 245–257.Google Scholar
  53. Palmer, D. C. (2011). Consideration of private events is required in a comprehensive science of behavior. The Behavior Analyst, 34, 201–207.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Peterson, L. R., & Peterson, M. J. (1959). Short term retention of individual verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 193–198.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pierce, W. D., & Cheney, C. D. (2008). Behavior analysis and learning (4th ed.). New York: Psychology.Google Scholar
  56. Place, U. T. (1993). A radical behaviorist methodology for the empirical investigation of private events. Behavior and Philosophy, 20, 25–35.Google Scholar
  57. Rachlin, H. (1994). Behavior and mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Rachlin, H. (2011). Baum’s private thoughts. The Behavior Analyst, 34, 209–212.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Schlinger, H. D. (2011). Introduction: Private events in a natural science of behavior. The Behavior Analyst, 34, 181–184.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Shimp, C. P. (1982). On metaknowledge in the pigeon: An organism’s knowledge about its own behavior. Animal Learning & Behavior, 10, 358–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Shimp, C. P. (1983). The local organization of behavior: Dissociations between a pigeon’s behavior and self-reports of that behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 39, 61–68.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston: Authors Cooperative.Google Scholar
  63. Skinner, B. F. (1945). The operational analysis of psychological terms. Psychological Review, 52(270–277), 291–294.Google Scholar
  64. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  65. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Skinner, B. F. (1964). Behaviorism at fifty. In T. W. Wann (Ed.), Behaviorism and phenomenology (pp. 79–108). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  67. Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  68. Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  69. Sonoda, A., & Okouchi, H. (2012). A revised procedure for analyzing private events. The Psychological Record, 62, 645–661.Google Scholar
  70. Todd, J. T., & Morris, E. K. (1995). Modern perspectives on B. F. Skinner and contemporary behaviorism. Westport: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  71. Wulfert, E., Dougher, M. J., & Greenway, D. E. (1991). Protocol analysis of the correspondence of verbal behavior and equivalence class formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 489–504.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyGonzaga UniversitySpokaneUSA

Personalised recommendations