Advertisement

The Behavior Analyst

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 25–33 | Cite as

Theory and Technology in Behavior Analysis

  • Steven C. Hayes
Article

Abstract

The differences within behaviorism in general and behavior analysis in particular have been described in many ways. Some of the more common distinctions are “basic versus applied”, “clinical versus non-clinical”, “behavior therapy versus behavior analysis”, and “experimental analysis of behavior versus applied behavior analysis”. These and other such distinctions do not seem to refer to truely important differences, or refer to important differences in confusing ways. It is suggested that there are two main dimensions which divide behaviorists into meaningful units: the type of paradigm (behavior analysis versus methodological behaviorism) and the level of analysis (technical, methodological, conceptual, or philosophical). By considering these two dimensions a number of issues in the field are recast. In particular, many of the differences within behavior analysis are recast into questions of the relationship between theory and technology.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference Notes

  1. 1.
    Michael, J. The relevance of animal research. Paper presented in S. C. Hayes (Chair), “Experimental analysis and applied behavior analysis: Reconciliation or divorce?”, symposium presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Association of Behavior Analysis, Chicago, May, 1977.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Catania, A. C. Untitled discussion in S. C. Hayes (Chair), “Experimental analysis and applied behavior analysis: Reconciliation or divorce?”, symposium presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Association of Behavior Analysis, Chicago, May, 1977.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Catania, A. C. Personal communication. May 20, 1977.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bailey, J. We used to all read JEAB, but is it still necessary? Paper presented in S. C. Hayes (Chair), “Experimental analysis and applied behavior analysis: Reconciliation or divorce?”, symposium presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Association of Behavior Analysis, Chicago, May, 1977.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brownstein, A. Science: Try it, you’ll like it. Paper presented in S. C. Hayes (Chair), “Experimental analysis and applied behavior analysis: Reconciliation or divorce?”, symposium presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Association of Behavior Analysis, Chicago, May, 1977.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Birnbrauer, J. Social significance is in the eye of the beholder. Paper presented in S. C. Hayes (Chair), “Experimental analysis and applied behavior analysis: Reconciliation or divorce?”, symposium presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Association of Behavior Analysis, Chicago, May, 1977.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brownstein, A., Wetherington, C. L., and Fifer, W. Pavlovian factors in operant schedules of reinforcement: I. Discrete trials fixed interval schedules. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, April, 1977.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goldiamond, I. Personal communication. November 8, 1977.Google Scholar

References

  1. Baer, D., Wolf, M., & Risley, T. R. Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1.Google Scholar
  2. Brown P. L., & Jenkins, H. M. Auto-shaping of the pigeon’s keypeck. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 11, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Day, W. F. On certain similarities between the Philosophical Investigations of Ludwig Wittgenstein and the operationism of B. F. Skinner. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1969, 12, 489–506.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Franks, C. M. Behavior Therapy: Appraisal and status. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969.Google Scholar
  5. Hayes, S. C., & Barlow, D. H. The scope of behavior modification in 1977. Behavior Therapy, in press.Google Scholar
  6. Herrnstein, R. J. The evolution of behaviorism. American Psychologist, 1977, 32, 593–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hersen, M., & Barlow, D. H. Single case experimental designs. New York: Pergamon, 1976.Google Scholar
  8. Kish, G. B. Studies of sensory reinforcement. In W. K. Honig (Ed.), Operant behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966.Google Scholar
  9. Krasner, L. Behavior Therapy. Annual Review of Psychology, 1971, 22, 483–532.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kuhn, T. S. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1962.Google Scholar
  11. Mahoney, M. J. Reflections on the cognitive-learning trend in psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 1977, 32, 5–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Rincover, A. Sensory extinction: A principle for treating self-stimulatory behavior in autistic and retarded children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, in press.Google Scholar
  13. Rincover, A., Peoples, A., & Packard, D. Using self-reinforcement and sensory extinction principles to program response generalization in psychotic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, in press.Google Scholar
  14. Skinner, B. F. About behaviorism. New York: Knopf, 1974.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven C. Hayes
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of North Carolina at GreensboroGreensboroUSA

Personalised recommendations