Abstract
Classical arguments for and against the circularity of the law of effect are reviewed. Demonstrations are made in some detail that the law is circular neither by definition nor by proof. The trans-situationality criterion of MeehPs (1950) “Weak Law of Effect” is evaluated. It is argued that trans-situationality has no crucial bearing on the circularity issue, and that it is only one of many criteria warranting reference to the law of effect as a covering law. Arguments that explanations by reference to covering laws are by their nature circular do not speak to the law of effect as such; rather, they are general critiques of the nature of scientific explanation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
BAER, D. M., WOLF, M. M., & RISLEY, T. R. 1968. Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91–97.
BAUM, W. M. 1974. Definition in behavioral science: A review of B. B. Wolman’s Dictionary of behavioral science. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 445–451.
BREGER, L., & McGAUGH, J. L. 1965. Critique and reformulation of “learning theory” approaches to psychotherapy and neurosis. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 338–358.
FERSTER, C. B., & SKINNER, B. F. 1957. Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
HEMPEL, C. G., & OPPENHEIM, P. 1948. Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15, 135–175.
HERRNSTEIN, R. J. 1970. On the law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 243–266.
HERSEN, M., & BARLOW, D. H. 1976. Single case experimental designs. New York: Pergamon.
HILGARD, E. R., & BOWER, G. H. 1966. Theories of learning (third edition). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
HONIG, W. K., & STADDON, J. E. R. (Eds.) 1977. Handbook of operant behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
KILLEEN, P. 1972. The matching law. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 17, 489–495.
MEEHL, P. E. 1950. On the circularity of the law of effect. Psychological Bulletin, 47, 52–75.
PREMACK, D. 1965. Reinforcement theory. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
PREMACK, D. 1971. Catching up with common sense or two sides of a generalization: Reinforcement and punishment. In R. Glaser (Ed.), The nature of reinforcement. New York: Academic Press.
SCHWARTZ, B. 1978. Psychology of learning and behavior. New York: W. W. Norton.
SELIGMAN, M. E. P., & HAGER, J. L. 1972. Biological boundaries of learning. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
SHELDON, M. H. 1974. The “discovery” of operants. Behaviorism, 2, 172–179.
SHETTLEWORTH, S. J. 1972. Constraints on learning. In D. S. Lehrman, R. A. Hinde, & E. Shaw (Eds.), Advances in the study of behavior, 4. New York: Academic Press.
SIDMAN, M. 1960. Tactics of scientific research. New York: Basic Books.
SKINNER, B. F. 1938. The behavior of organisms. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
TIMBERLAKE, W., & ALLISON, J. 1974. Response deprivation: An empirical approach to instrumental performance. Psychological Review, 81, 146–164.
WEIST, W. M. 1967. Some recent criticisms of behaviorism and learning theory with special reference to Breger and McGaugh and Chomsky. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 214–225.
WILCOXON, H. C. 1969. Historical introduction to the problem of reinforcement. In J. T. Tapp (Ed.), Reinforcement and behavior. New York: Academic Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schnaitter, R. Circularity, Trans-Situationality, and the Law of Effect. Psychol Rec 28, 353–362 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394546
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394546