Advertisement

The Psychological Record

, Volume 59, Issue 1, pp 133–141 | Cite as

Psychological Events and Constructs: An Alliance with Smith

  • Mitch J. FrylingEmail author
  • Linda J. Hayes
In Response

Abstract

The distinction between constructs and events is often overlooked in the sciences, as evidenced by a number of long-standing confusions of the former with the latter. The authors propose that the distinction between constructs and events is particularly important in the science of psychology, as psychological events have a number of unique characteristics that make this confusion more likely than is the case in other sciences. The nature of psychological events and the constructs derived from them are described in this article, along with the value of maintaining the distinction between them for the science of psychology and its relations with other sciences.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. HAYES, L. J. (1992). The psychological present. The Behavior Analyst, 15, 139–145.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. HAYES, L. J., ADAMS, M. A., & Dixon, M. R. (1997). Causal constructs and conceptual confusions. The Psychological Record, 46, 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. KANTOR, J. R. (1924). Principles of psychology (Vol. 1). Chicago: Principia Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. KANTOR, J. R. (1926). Principles of psychology (Vol. 2). Chicago: Principia Press.Google Scholar
  5. KANTOR, J. R. (1947). Problems of physiological psychology. Bloomington, IN: Principia Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. KANTOR, J. R. (1950). Psychology and logic (Vol. 2). Chicago: Principia Press.Google Scholar
  7. KANTOR, J. R. (1953). The logic of modern science. Chicago: Principia Press.Google Scholar
  8. KANTOR, J. R. (1957). Events and constructs in the science of psychology: Philosophy—Banished and recalled. The Psychological Record, 7, 55–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. KANTOR, J. R. (1958). Interbehavioral psychology. Chicago: Principia Press.Google Scholar
  10. KANTOR, J. R. (1970). An analysis of the experimental analysis of behavior (TEAB). Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 101–108.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. MORRIS, E. K. (1992). The aim, progress, and evolution of behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 15, 3–29.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. PARROTT, L. J. (1986). On the role of postulation in the analysis of inapparent events. In H. W. Reese & L. J. Parrott (Eds.), Behavior science: Philosophical, methodological, and empirical advances (pp. 35–60). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. PARROTT, L. J. (1987). On the distinction between setting events and stimuli. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 5, 6–11.Google Scholar
  14. SKINNER, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  15. SKINNER, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. SKINNER, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  17. SKINNER, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  18. SKINNER, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  19. SMITH, N. W. (2007). Events and constructs. The Psychological Record, 57, 169–186.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentUniversity of Nevada, RenoRenoUSA

Personalised recommendations