Advertisement

The Behavior Analyst

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 149–161 | Cite as

A Historical Perspective on the Future of Behavior Science

  • Linda J. HayesEmail author
  • Mitch J. Fryling
Article

Abstract

Like all natural sciences, behavior science has much to offer toward an understanding of the world. The extent to which the promise of behavior science is realized, though, depends upon the extent to which we keep what we know before us. This paper considers fundamental concepts in behavior science, including the concepts of behavior, stimulation, setting conditions, and language. In considering these concepts, we revisit comments from B. F. Skinner and J. R. Kantor and also consider some areas of behavior analytic research and the implications they have for reconsidering long-held assumptions about the analysis of behavior. We hope that, in considering our foundations, the vitality and strength of the discipline might be enhanced, our impact on science improved, and our future secured.

Keywords

Behavior Behavior science Stimulation System building Language 

References

  1. Baron, A., Perone, M., & Galizio, M. (1991). Analyzing the reinforcement process at the human level: can application and behavioristic interpretation replace laboratory research? The Behavior Analyst, 14, 95–105.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Baum, W. M. (2013). What counts as behavior: the molar multiscale view. The Behavior Analyst, 36, 283–293.Google Scholar
  3. Dymond, S., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2000). Understanding complex behavior: the transformation of stimulus functions. The Behavior Analyst, 23, 239–254.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Fryling, M. J., & Hayes, L. J. (2009). Psychological events and constructs: an alliance with Smith. The Psychological Record, 59, 133–142.Google Scholar
  5. Fryling, M. J., & Hayes, L. J. (2011). The concept of function in the analysis of behavior. Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis, 37, 11–20. doi: 10.5514/rmac.v37.i1.24686.Google Scholar
  6. Hayes, L. J. (1992). The psychological present. The Behavior Analyst, 15, 139–145.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Hayes, L. J. (1998). Remembering as a psychological event. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 18, 135–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hayes, L. J. (2001). Finding our place in a constructed future. In L. J. Hayes, J. Austin, R. Houmanfar, & M. C. Clayton (Eds.), Organizational change (pp. 349–372). Reno: Context Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hayes, L. J. (2013). Theory and philosophy: future directions. The Behavior Analyst, 36, 373–374.Google Scholar
  10. Hayes, L. J., Adams, M., & Dixon, M. R. (1997). Causal constructs and conceptual confusions. The Psychological Record, 46, 97–111.Google Scholar
  11. Hayes, L. J., & Delgado, D. (2005). Transgenic and knockout models: the problem of language. In G. Fish & J. Flint (Eds.), Transgenic and knockout models of neuropsychiatric disorders (pp. 45–67). Towanta: Humana.Google Scholar
  12. Hayes, L. J., & Delgado, D. (2007). Animal models of non-conventional human behavior. Behavior Genetics, 37, 11–17. doi: 10.1007/s10519-006-9126-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hayes, L. J., & Fryling, M. J. (2009a). Overcoming the pseudo-problem of private events in the analysis of behavior. Behavior and Philosophy, 37, 39–57.Google Scholar
  14. Hayes, L. J., & Fryling, M. J. (2009b). Toward an interdisciplinary science of culture. The Psychological Record, 59, 679–700.Google Scholar
  15. Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Relational frame theory: a post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.Google Scholar
  16. Kantor, J. R. (1924). Principles of psychology (Vol. I). Bloomington: Principia Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kantor, J. R. (1950). Psychology and logic (Vol. II). Chicago: The Principia Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kantor, J. R. (1953). The logic of modern science. Chicago: Principia Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kantor, J. R. (1958). Interbehavioral psychology. Chicago: Principia Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kantor, J. R. (1977). Psychological linguistics. Chicago: The Principia Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kantor, J. R., & Smith, N. W. (1975). The science of psychology: an interbehavioral survey. Chicago: The Principia Press.Google Scholar
  22. Marr, M. J. (2013). Theory and philosophy: Themes and variations. The Behavior Analyst, 36, 193–195.Google Scholar
  23. Parrott, L. J. (1983a). Similarities and differences among Skinner’s Radical Behaviorism and Kantor’s Interbehaviorism. Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis, 9, 95–115.Google Scholar
  24. Parrott, L. J. (1983b). Systemic foundations for the concept of ‘private events’. In N. W. Smith, P. T. Mountjoy, & D. H. Ruben (Eds.), Reassessment in psychology: the interbehavioral alternative (pp. 251–268). Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  25. Parrott, L. J. (1984). Listening and understanding. The Behavior Analyst, 7, 29–39.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Parrott, L. J. (1986). On the role of postulation in the analysis of inapparent events. In H. W. Reese & L. J. Parrott (Eds.), Behavior science: philosophical, methodological, and empirical advances (pp. 35–60). Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  27. Rachlin, H. (2013). About teleological behaviorism. The Behavior Analyst, 36, 209–222.Google Scholar
  28. Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 127–146. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2000.74-127.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  30. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Croft.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tonneau, F. (2001). Equivalence relations: a critical analysis. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 2, 1–33.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology/296University of Nevada, RenoRenoUSA
  2. 2.California State UniversityLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations