Abstract
To the extent that the concept of intention has been addressed within behavior analysis, descriptions of intention have been general and have not specifically included important distinctions that differentiate a behavior-analytic approach from vernacular definitions of intention. A fundamental difference between a behavior-analytic approach and most other psychological approaches is that other approaches focus on the necessity of intentions to explain behavior, whereas a behavior-analytic approach is directed at understanding the interplay between behavior and environment. Behavioranalytic interpretations include the relations between the observer’s behavior and the environment. From a behavior-analytic perspective, an analysis of the observer’s interpretations of an individual’s behavior is inherent in the subsequent attribution of intention. The present agenda is to provide a behavior-analytic account of attributing intention that identifies the establishing conditions for speaking of intention. Also addressed is the extent to which we speak of intentions when the observed individual’s behavior is contingency shaped or under instructional control.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baum, W. M. (1995). Rules, culture and fitness. The Behavior Analyst, 18, 1–21.
Blackman, D. E. (1979, September). On the mental element in crime and behaviorism. Paper presented at the meeting of the SSRC Law and Psychology Seminar Group, Oxford, England.
Cerutti, D. T. (1989). Discrimination theory of rule-governed behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 259–276.
Dasser, V., Ulbaek, I., & Premack, D. (1989). The perception of intention. Science, 243, 365–367.
Day, W. F. (1975). Contemporary behaviorism and the concept of intention. In J. K. Cole & W. J. Arnold (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 65–129). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Dennett, D. C. (1988). Précis of the intentional stance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 495–546.
Friman, P. C, Wilson, K. G., & Hayes, S. C. (1998). Behavior analysis of private events is possible, progressive, and nondualistic: A response to Lamal. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 707–708.
Glenn, S. S. (1983). Maladaptive functional relations in client verbal behavior. The Behavior Analyst, 6, 7–56.
Gross, A. M., & Wojnilower, D. A. (1984). Self-directed behavior change in children: Is it self-directed? Behavior Therapy, 15, 501–514.
Hayes, S. C, Rosenfarb, I., Wulfert, E., Munt, E. D., Korn, Z., & Zettle, R. D. (1985). Selfreinforcement effects: An artifact of social standard setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 201–214.
Hefferline, R. E, Keenon, B., & Harford, R. A. (1959). Escape and avoidance conditioning in human subjects without their observation of the response. Science, 130, 1338–1339.
Hineline, P. N. (1992). A self-interpretive behavior analysis. American Psychologist, 47, 1274–1286.
Hineline, P. N., & Wanchisen, B. A. (1989). Correlated hypothesizing and the distinction between contingency-shaped and rule-governed behavior. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.), Rulegoverned behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control (pp. 221–268). New York: Plenum.
Jones, R. T., Nelson, R. E., & Kazdin, A. E. (1977). The role of external variables in selfreinforcement: A review. Behavior Modification, 1, 147–178.
Lacey, H. (1998). On the limits of radical behaviorism: A reply to Leigland’s reply. Behavior and Philosophy, 26, 63–71.
Lana, R. E. (1991). Assumptions of social psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lana, R. E. (1994). Social history and the behavioral repertoire. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 315–322.
Landgrebe, L. (1981). The phenomenology of Edmund Husserl. New York: Cornell University.
Martin, J. (1979). Laboratory studies of selfreinforcement (SR) phenomena. Journal of General Psychology, 101, 103–149.
Martin, J. (1980). External versus self-reinforcement: A review of methodological and theoretical issues. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 12, 111–125.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. New York: Humanities Press.
Searle, J. R. (1980). The intentionality of intention in action. Cognitive Science, 4, 47–70.
Searle, J. R. (1990). Consciousness, explanatory inversion and cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 585–642.
Skinner, B. F. (1945). The operational analysis of psychological terms. Psychological Review, 52, 270–277.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Skinner, B. F. (1966). An operant analysis of problem solving. In B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.), Problem solving: Research, method, and theory (pp. 225–257). New York: Wiley.
Skinner, B. F (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Knopf.
Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Knopf.
Sohn, D., & Lamal, P. A. (1982). Self-reinforcement: Its reinforcing capability and its clinical utility. The Psychological Record, 32, 179–203.
Wann, T. W (1964). Behaviorism and phenomenology: Contrasting basis for modern psychology. In T. W. Wann (Ed.), Behaviorism and phenomenology (pp. 1–190). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wilkerson, W S. (1999). From bodily motions to bodily intentions. Philosophical Psychology, 12, 61–77.
Zettle, R. D., & Hayes, S. C. (1982). Rule-governed behavior: A potential theoretical framework for cognitive-behavioral therapy. In P. C. Kendall (Ed.), Advances in cognitive behavioral research and therapy (pp. 73–117). New York: Academic Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
I dedicate this paper to Douglas P. Field. I thank the many readers of early versions of this manuscript.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Neuman, P. An intentional interpretive perspective. BEHAV ANALYST 27, 55–65 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392092
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392092