Abstract
The scientific status of the law of effect and applied research that involves the law of effect are examined through a falsificationist analysis of the logic of research and the demarcation question, that is, what should be regarded as scientific. Some logical and epis-temological problems of a nonfalsificationist, inductivist conceptualization of science are reviewed. A falsificationist demarcation criterion is discussed as an alternative that is free of such logical and philosophical difficulties. A brief review of the history of the law of effect and criticisms of the law of effect is presented. It is concluded that the law of effect is in principle falsifiable and, hence, it is scientific. However, questions are raised regarding the extent to which the law of effect actually has been tested, given the Duhem-Quine thesis and problems with independent and valid means of identifying reinforcers. Minimally, practical questions are raised regarding what the law of effect is and how it is to be tested.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
ALSTON, W. (1967). The logical status of psychoanalytic theories. In P. Edwards (Ed.), The encyclopedia of philosophy. New York: Macmillan.
BELL, P. B., & STAINES, P. J. (1981). Reasoning and argument in psychology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
DOMJAN, M., & BURKHARD, B. (1982). The principles of learning and behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
FEYERABEND, P. K. (1970). Consolations for the specialist. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
FREUD, S. (1940). Standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (J. Strachey et al., Trans.). London: Hogarth Press.
GOODMAN, N. (1975). Fact, fiction and forecast. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
GRUNBAUM, A. (1977). How scientific is psychoanalysis? In R. Stern, L. Horowitz, & J. Lynes (Eds.), Science and psychotherapy. New York: Haven.
GRUNBAUM, A. (1983a). Freud’s theory: The perspective of a philosopher of science. Proceedings and address of the American Philosophical Association, 5–31.
GRUNBAUM, A. (1983b). The foundations of psychoanalysis: A philosophical critique. Berkeley: University of California Press.
HEMPEL, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation. New York: Free Press.
HERRNSTEIN, R. J. (1970). On the law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 243–266.
KOERTGE, N. (in press). The growth of the mind (R. M. Ogden, Trans.). New York: Harcourt Brace Javonovich.
LAKATOS, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MAGEE, B. (1973). Popper. London: Fontana.
MAHONEY, M. J. (1979). Cognitive and noncognitive views in behavior modification. In P. Sjoden, S. Bates, & W. Dockens (Eds.), Trends in behavior therapy. New York: Academic Press.
MEEHL, P. E. (1950). On the circularity of the law of effect. Psychological Bulletin, 47, 52–75.
PIERCE, W. D., & EPLING, W. F. (1980). What happened to analyses in applied behavior analyses? The Behavior Analyst, 1–9.
POPPER, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. New York: Harper.
POPPER, K. (1972). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
POPPER, K. (1983). Realism and the aim of science. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.
POSTMAN, L. (1947). The history and present status of the law of effect. Psychological Bulletin, 44, 489–563.
PREMACK, D. (1961). Predicting instrumental performance from the independent rate of the contingent response. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 163–171.
PREMACK, D. (1962). Reversibility of the reinforcement relation. Science, 255–257.
PREMACK, D. (1963). Prediction of the comparative reinforcement values of running and drinking. Science, 1062–1063.
PREMACK, D. (1965). Reinforcement theory. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 13).
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.
SIDMAN, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research. New York: Basic Books.
SKINNER, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Free Press.
THORNDIKE, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence. New York: Macmillan.
THORNDIKE, E. L. (1927). The law of effect. American Journal of Psychology, 39, 212–222.
TIMBERLAKE, W., & ALLISON, J. (1974). Response deprivation: An empirical approach to instrumental performance. Psychological Review, 146–164.
TOLMAN, E. C. (1938). The determiners of behavior at a choice point. Psychological Review, 1–41.
WATSON, J. B. (1919). Psychology from the standpoint of a behaviorist. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
WUNDT, W. (1897). Outline of psychology. Leipzig: Englemann.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
We thank Nino Cocchiarella, James Dinsmoor, Jane Fisher, Yu Houng Houng, Arthur Houts, Noretta Koertge, and Thomas Oltmanns for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
O’Donohue, W., Krasner, L. The Logic of Research and the Scientific Status of the Law of Effect. Psychol Rec 38, 157–174 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395013
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395013