Advertisement

The Behavior Analyst

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 175–190 | Cite as

Mentalism, Behavior-Behavior Relations, and a Behavior-Analytic View of the Purposes of Science

  • Steven C. Hayes
  • Aaron J. Brownstein
Article
First Online:

Abstract

In a behavioral view, the purposes of science are primarily prediction and control. To the extent that a scientist embraces both of these as a unified and generally applicable criterion for science, certain philosophical and theoretical practices are counterproductive, including mentalism in both its metaphysical and metatheoretical forms. It is possible and often worthwhile to recast some mentalistic talk into an issue of behavior-behavior relations. When behavior-behavior relations are approached non-mechanistically, however, analysis cannot stop at the level of the relations themselves. Several analytic concepts common in the behavioral community share some of the dangers of mentalism if not employed properly, including such concepts as self-reinforcement, response-produced stimulation, and self-rules.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bandura, A. (1978). The self system in reciprocal determinism. American Psychologist, 33, 344–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1981). In search of pure unidirectional determinants. Behavior Therapy, 12, 30–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Catania, A. C. (1973). The psychologies of structure, function, and development. American Psychologist, 28, 434–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dawkins, R. (1982). The extended phenotype. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  5. Ellis, H. C., & Hunt, R. R. (1983). Fundamentals of human memory and cognition (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IO: W. C. Brown.Google Scholar
  6. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Harris, M. (1979). Cultural materialism: The struggle for a science of culture. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  8. Hayes, S. C. (1986). The case of the silent dog-Verbal reports and the analysis of rules: A review of Ericsson and Simon’s “Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data”. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45, 351–363.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Hayes, S. C., & Reese, H. W. (in press). A review of S. C. Pepper’s “World Hypotheses: A Study in Evidence.” Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior.Google Scholar
  10. Hayes, S. C., Rosenfarb, S. C., Wulfert, E., Korn, Z., & Zettle, R. D. (1985). Self-reinforcement procedures: Another way to set social standards? Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 201–214.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Heidbreder, E. (1933). Seven psychologies. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  12. Keat, R. (1972). A critical examination of B. F. Skinner’s objections to mentalism. Behaviorism, 1, 53–70.Google Scholar
  13. Killeen, P. R. (1984). Emergent behaviorism. Behaviorism, 12, 25–39.Google Scholar
  14. Locke, J. (1690). An essay concerning human understanding. London: Awnsham, Churchill, & Manship.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Malott, R. W. (in press) The achievement of evasive goals: Control by rules describing indirect-acting contingencies. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.), Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  16. Martin, M. (1978). Interpreting Skinner. Behaviorism, 6, 129–138.Google Scholar
  17. Moore, J. (1981). On mentalism, methodological ]behaviorism, and radical behaviorism. Behaviorism, 9, 55–77.Google Scholar
  18. Ornstein, P. A., & Naus, M. J. (1978). Rehearsal processes in children’s memory. In P. A. Ornstein (Ed.), Memory development in children (pp. 6999). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Pepper, S. C. (1942). World hypotheses. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  20. Reese, H. W. (May, 1984). Historical and philosophical analysis of causality. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Nashville.Google Scholar
  21. Skinner, B. F. (1945). The operational analysis of psychological terms. Psychological Review, 52, 270–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  23. Skinner, B. F. (1963). Behaviorism at fifty. Science, 134, 566–602.Google Scholar
  24. Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  25. Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  26. Skinner, B. F. (1984). Reply to Catania. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 718–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sohn, D., & Lamal, P. A. (1982). Self-reinforcement: Its reinforcing capability and its clinical utility. The Psychological Record, 32, 179–203.Google Scholar
  28. Watson, J. B. (1920). Is thinking merely the action of language mechanisms? British Journal of Psychology, 11, 87–104.Google Scholar
  29. Watson, J. B. (1925). Behaviorism. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  30. Wessells, M. G. (1981). A critique of Skinner’s views on the explanatory inadequacy or cognitive theories. Behaviorism, 9, 153–170.Google Scholar
  31. Wessells, M. G. (1982). A critique of Skinner’s views on the obstructive character of cognitive theories. Behaviorism, 10, 65–84.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven C. Hayes
    • 1
  • Aaron J. Brownstein
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Nevada-RenoRenoUSA
  2. 2.University of North CarolinaGreensboroUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options