The Behavior Analyst

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 133–151 | Cite as

Windows on the 21st Century

  • Sigrid S. Glenn
Article

Abstract

Behavior analysis is a cultural system of which the Association for Behavior Analysis is a component cultural system. As cultural systems, they are composed of interlocking behavioral contingencies that constitute their cultural practices. Critical to the survival of both cultural systems is the frequency of interaction with and the nature of the content of the behavioral contingencies composing those cultural practices. The strengths of behavior analysis as a cultural system include its disciplinary character and its worldwide community of scientists and practitioners; its ability to be integrated into a scientific worldview; its track record in providing effective solutions to problems of importance to society; and the high levels of intellect, competence, and commitment that are characteristic of its participants. Weaknesses of behavior analysis are its status as an academic orphan, its relatively small size and its underdeveloped professional identity, and a lack of sociopolitical sophistication among many of its members. Behavior analysis will need to maximize its strengths and mitigate its weaknesses if it is to take advantage of the many opportunities available for growth in the modern world.

Keywords

strategic overview butterfly effect credentialing related disciplines public understanding behavior analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abernathy, W. B., Duffy, E. M., & O’Brien, R. M. (1982). Multi-branch, multi-systems programs in banking: An organization-wide intervention. In R. M. O’Brien, A. M. Dickinson, & M. P. Rosow (Eds.), Industrial behavior modification: A management handbook (pp. 370–382). New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, R. N. (1988). The eighth day: Social evolution as the self-organization of energy. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  3. Alessi, G. (1992). Models of proximate and ultimate causation. American Psychologist, 47, 1359–1370.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Baer, D. M. (1981). A flight of behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 4, 85–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Baer, D. M., & Sherman, J. A. (1964). Reinforcement control of generalized imitation in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1, 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnes, D., & Keenan, M. (1993). Concurrent activities and instructed human fixed-interval performance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 59, 501–520.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Bentall, R. P., & Lowe, C. F. (1987). The role of verbal behavior in human learning: III. Instructional effects in children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 47, 177–190.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Bijou, S. W., & Baer, D. M. (1978). Behavior analysis of child development (rev. ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Brady, J. V. (1992). Continuously programmed environments and the experimental analysis of human behavior. Monograph No. 1 in S. S. Glenn (Ed.), Progress in behavioral studies monograph series. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies.Google Scholar
  10. Burgio, L. D., Page, T. J., & Capriotti, R. M. (1985). Clinical behavioral pharmacology: Methods for evaluating medications and contingency management. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 45–59.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Catania, A. C. (1973). The concept of the operant in the analysis of behavior. Behaviorism, 1, 103–115.Google Scholar
  12. Catania, A. C. (1984). Learning (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Donahoe, J. W. (1991). The selectionist approach to verbal behavior: Potential contributions of neuropsychology and connectionism. In L. J. Hayes & P. N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior (pp. 119–145). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  14. Ellis, J. (1991). Contingencies and metacontingencies in correctional settings. In P. A. Lamal (Ed.), Behavioral analysis of societies and cultural practices (pp. 201–217). Washington, DC: Hemisphere Press.Google Scholar
  15. Foxx, R. M., & Shapiro, S. T. (1978). The timeout ribbon: A nonexclusionary time-out procedure. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 125–136.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Geller, E. S. (1990). Performance management and occupational safety: Start with a safety belt program. In W. K. Redmon & A. M. Dickinson (Eds.), Promoting excellence through performance management (pp. 149–174). New York: Haworth Press.Google Scholar
  17. Geller, E. S., Paterson, L., & Talbott, E. (1982). A behavioral analysis of incentive prompts for motivating seat belt use. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 403–413.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. London: Penguin Group.Google Scholar
  19. Glenn, S. S. (1986). Behavior: A gene for the social sciences. Poster presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  20. Glenn, S. S. (1988). Contingencies and metacontingencies: Toward a synthesis of behavior analysis and cultural materialism. The Behavior Analyst, 11, 161–179.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Glenn, S. S. (1991). Contingencies and metacontingencies: Relations between behavioral, cultural, and biological evolution. In P. Lamal (Ed.), Behavior analysis of societies and cultural practices. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Press.Google Scholar
  22. Glenn, S. S., Ellis, J., & Greenspoon, J. (1992). On the revolutionary nature of the operant as a unit of behavioral selection. American Psychologist, 47, 1329–1336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Glenn, S. S., & Field, D. P. (1993). Functions of the environment and operant behavior. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  24. Glenn, S. S., & Malagodi, E. F. (1991). Process and content in behavioral and cultural phenomena. Behavior and Social Issues, 1, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goldiamond, I. (1962). Perception. In A. J. Bachrach (Ed.), Experimental foundations of clinical psychology (pp. 280–340). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  26. Harris, M. (1979). Cultural materialism: The struggle for a science of culture. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  27. Heimstein, R. J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 267–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hineline, P. N. (1986). Re-tuning the operantrespondent distinction. In T. Thompson & M. D. Zeiler (Eds.), Analysis and integration of behavioral units (pp. 55–79). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Horner, R. D. (1980). The effects of an environmental “enrichment” program on the behavior of institutionalized profoundly retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 473–491.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Hull, D. (1984). Units of evolution: A metaphysical essay. In R. N. Brandon & R. M. Burian (Eds.), Genes, organisms, populations: Controversies over the units of selection (pp. 142–160). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hussian, R. A., & Davis, R. L. (1985). Responsive care: Behavioral interventions with elderly persons. Champaign, IL: Research Press.Google Scholar
  32. Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1982). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson, K. R., & Layng, T. V. J. (1992). Breaking the structuralist barrier: Literacy and numeracy with fluency. Paper presented at Selectionist Workshop at the meeting of the Association for Behavior Analysis, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  34. Johnston, J. M. (1993). Basic and applied research: Bifurcation or continuum. In J. Green-spoon (Chair), Integrating applied, basic, and conceptual work in behavior analysis. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Chicago.Google Scholar
  35. Johnston, J. M., & Shook, G. L. (1987). Developing behavior analysis at the state level. The Behavior Analyst, 10, 199–233.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Joyce, J. H., & Chase, P. N. (1990). Effects of response variability on the sensitivity of rule-governed behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 251–262.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Keller, F. S., & Schoenfeld, W. N. (1950). Principles of psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  38. Killeen, P. R. (1992). Mechanics of the animate. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 57, 429–463.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Krantz, P. J., & McClannahan, L. E. (1993). Teaching children with autism to initiate to peers: Effects of a script-fading procedure. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 121–132.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Laszlo, E. (1987). Evolution: The grand synthesis. Boston: New Science Library.Google Scholar
  41. Lee, V. L. (1988). Beyond behaviorism. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Lubinski, D., & Thompson, T. (1986). Functional units of human behavior and their integration: A dispositional analysis. In T. Thompson & M. D. Zeiler (Eds.), Analysis and integration of behavioral units (pp. 275–314). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  43. Malott, R. W. (1988). Rule-governed behavior and behavioral anthropology. The Behavior Analyst, 11, 181–203.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Martens, B. K., & Houk, J. L. (1989). The application of Herrnstein’s law of effect to disruptive and on-task behavior of a retarded adolescent girl. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 17–27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Matos, M. A. (1992, October). Conditional discrimination: Instructions, consequences and trial types. Paper presented at the First International Congress on Behaviorism and the Sciences of Behavior, University of Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico.Google Scholar
  46. Matos, M. A., & d’Oliveira, M. M. H. (1992). Equivalence relations and reading. In S. C. Hayes & L. J. Hayes (Eds.), Understanding verbal relations (pp. 83–94). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  47. McDowell, J. J. (1988). Matching theory in natural human environments. The Behavior Analyst, 11, 95–109.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Mechner, F. (1992). The revealed operant: A way to study the characteristics of individual occurrences of operant responses. Monograph No. 3 in S. S. Glenn (Ed.), Progress in behavioral studies monograph series. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies.Google Scholar
  49. Michael, J. L. (1980). Flight from behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 3, 1–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Michael, J. L. (1985). Behavior analysis: A radical perspective. In B. L. Hammonds (Ed.), Master lecture series: Vol. 4. Psychology of learning (pp. 99–121). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  51. Miller, R. R., & Spear, N. E. (Eds.). (1985). Information processing in animals: Conditioned inhibition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  52. Morris, E. K. (1992). Beyond interpretation: The experimental analysis of behavioral content. Commentary on J. V. Brady, Continuously programmed environments and the experimental analysis of behavior. Monograph 1, Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies Monograph Series.Google Scholar
  53. Nevin, J. A. (1992). An integrative model for the study of behavioral momentum. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 57, 301–316.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Page, S., & Neuringer, A. (1985). Variability as an operant. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 11, 429–452.Google Scholar
  55. Pantin, C. F. A. (1968). The relations between the sciences. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Pear, J. J., & Legris, J. A. (1987). Shaping by automated tracking of an arbitrary operant response. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 47, 241–247.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Peterson, R. F. (1968). Some experiments on the organization of a class of imitative behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 225–235.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. Robinson, J. K., & Woodward, W. R. (1989). The convergence of behavioral biology and operant psychology: Toward an interlevel and interfield science. The Behavior Analyst, 12, 131–141.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Russo, D. C., Cataldo, M. F., & Cushing, P. J. (1981). Compliance training and behavioral covariation in the treatment of multiple behavior problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 209–222.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. Schick, K. (1971). Operants. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 15, 413–423.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. Schwartz, B. (1982). Failure to produce response variability with reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 171–181.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Scott, T. R. (1991). A personal view of the future of psychology departments. American Psychologist, 46, 975–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shook, G. L. (1993). The professional credential in behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 16, 87–101.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equivalences. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 14, 5–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Sidman, M. (1986). Functional anlaysis of emergent verbal classes. In T. Thompson & M. D. Zeiler (Eds.), Analysis and integration of behavioral units (pp. 213–245). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  66. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  67. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  68. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  70. Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  71. Skinner, B. F. (1981). Selection by consequences. Science, 213, 501–504.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Staats, A. W. (1968). Learning, language, and cognition. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
  73. Sulzer-Azaroff, B., Loafman, B., Merante, R. J., & Hlavacek, A. C. (1990). Improving occupational safety in a large industrial plant: A systematic replication. In W. K. Redmon & A. M. Dickinson (Eds.), Promoting excellence through performance management (pp. 99–120). New York: Haworth Press.Google Scholar
  74. Thompson, T., & Zeiler, M. D. (1986). Analysis and integration of behavioral units. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  75. Torgrud, L. J., & Holborn, S. W. (1990). The effects of verbal performance descriptions on nonverbal operant responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 273–291.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. Tucci, V., & Hursh, D. (1991). Competent learner model: Instructional progamming for teachers and learners. Education and Treatment of Children, 14(4), 349–360.Google Scholar
  77. Vaidya, M. (1993). Conditional discriminations and derived relations: Pinpointing the moment of emergence. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of North Texas, Denton.Google Scholar
  78. Vargas, E. A. (1985). Cultural contingencies [Review of Marvin Harris’s Cannibals and Kings]. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 419–428.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  79. Vargas, E. A., & Fraley, L. E. (1984). Teachers and students: Reflections on social control and future performance. The Behavior Analyst, 7, 131–137.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  80. Watson, J. B. (1970). Behaviorism. New York: Norton. (Original work published 1924)Google Scholar
  81. Wilk, L. A., & Redmon, W. K. (1990). A daily-adjusted goal-setting and feedback procedure for improving productivity in a university admissions department. In W. K. Redmon & A. M. Dickinson (Eds.), Promoting excellence through performance management (pp. 55–75). New York: Haworth Press.Google Scholar
  82. Wittkopp, C. J., Rowan, J. F., & Poling, A. (1990). Use of a feedback package to reduce machine setup time in a manufacturing setting. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 11(2), 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zeiler, M. D. (1992). On immediate function. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 57, 417–427.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sigrid S. Glenn
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Behavior AnalysisUniversity of North TexasDentonUSA

Personalised recommendations