The Behavior Analyst

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 167–176 | Cite as

Quantitative Prediction and Molar Description of the Environment

  • William M. Baum
Article

Abstract

Molecular explanations of behavior, based on momentary events and variables that can be measured each time an event occurs, can be contrasted with molar explanations, based on aggregates of events and variables that can be measured only over substantial periods of time. Molecular analyses cannot suffice for quantitative accounts of behavior, because the historical variables that determine behavior are inevitably molar. When molecular explanations are attempted, they always depend on hypothetical constructs that stand as surrogates for molar environmental variables. These constructs allow no quantitative predictions when they are vague, and when they are made precise, they become superfluous, because they can be replaced with molar measures. In contrast to molecular accounts of phenomena like higher responding on ratio schedules than interval schedules and free-operant avoidance, molar accounts tend to be simple and straightforward. Molar theory incorporates the notion that behavior produces consequences that in turn affect the behavior, the notion that behavior and environment together constitute a feedback system. A feedback function specifies the dependence of consequences on behavior, thereby describing properties of the environment. Feedback functions can be derived for simple schedules, complex schedules, and natural resources. A complete theory of behavior requires describing the environment’s feedback functions and the organism’s functional relations. Molar thinking, both in the laboratory and in the field, can allow quantitative prediction, the mark of a mature science.

Key words

molar description feedback function behavior-environment system operant behavior hypothetical constructs 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anger, D. (1963). The role of temporal discriminations in the reinforcement of Sidman avoidance behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 477–506.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Baum, W. M. (1973). The correlation-based law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 20, 137–153.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Baum, W. M. (1981). Optimization and the matching law as accounts of instrumental behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 36, 387–403.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Baum, W. M. (1986). Performance on ratio and interval schedules: Some data and some theory. Invited address at the convention of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Milwaukee.Google Scholar
  5. Baum, W. M. (1987). Random and systematic foraging, experimental studies of depletion, and schedules of reinforcement. In A. C. Kamil, J. R. Krebs, & H. R. Pulliam (Eds.), Foraging behavior (pp. 587–607). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Herrnstein, R. J. (1969). Method and theory in the study of avoidance. Psychological Review, 76, 49–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Herrnstein, R. J., & Hineline, P. N. (1966). Negative reinforcement as shock-frequency reduction. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 9, 421–430.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Killeen, P. (1968). On the measurement of reinforcement frequency in the study of preference. Journal of the Experimental A nalysis of Behavior, 11, 263–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mazur, J. E. (1986). Learning and behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Rachlin, H. (1976). Behavior and learning. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  11. Solomon, R. L., & Wynne, L. C. (1954). Traumatic avoidance learning: The principles of anxiety conservation and partial irreversibility. Psychological Review, 61, 353–385.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Staddon, J. E. R. (1973). On the notion of cause, with applications to behaviorism. Behaviorism, 1, 25–63.Google Scholar
  13. Staddon, J. E. R. (1980). Optimality analyses of operant behavior and their relation to optimal foraging. In J. E. R. Staddon (Ed.), Limits to action (pp. 101–141). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Stephens, D. W., & Krebs, J. R. (1986). Foraging theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Taylor, R. J. (1984). Predation. New York: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • William M. Baum
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations