Rules of Conduct for Behavior Analysts in the Presence of Hypothetical Constructs: A Commentary on Eckard and Lattal (2020)

Perspectives on Behavior Science volume 43, pages791–802(2020)Cite this article

A Correction to this article was published on 10 December 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

Eckard and Lattal (2020) summarized the behavioristic view of hypothetical constructs and theories, and then, in a novel and timely manner, applied this view to a critique of internal clock models of temporal control. In our three-part commentary, we aim to contribute to the authors’ discussion by first expanding upon their view of the positive contributions afforded by constructs and theories. We then refine and question their view of the perils of reifying constructs and assigning them causal properties. Finally, we suggest to behavior analysts four rules of conduct for dealing with mediational theories: tolerate constructs proposed with sufficient reason; consider them seriously, both empirically and conceptually; develop alternative, behavior-analytic models with overlapping empirical domains; and contrast the various models. Through variation and selection, behavioral science will evolve.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Change history

  • 10 December 2020

    A Correction to this paper has been published: <ExternalRef><RefSource>https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-020-00275-7</RefSource><RefTarget Address="10.1007/s40614-020-00275-7" TargetType="DOI"/></ExternalRef>

Notes

  1. 1.

    Timing, time perception, temporal regulation, and temporal discrimination are alternative labels to designate approximately the same research domain.

  2. 2.

    “These drawbacks center on very practical concerns for psychology as an experimental and theoretical enterprise” (p. 11; emphasis added).

  3. 3.

    Their rationale is similar to behavioral-analytic research by Dews (1970) who turned on and off the keylight to study whether pigeons’ temporal performance in a FI schedule was chain-like, in which case it should be disrupted by the stimulus interruptions.

  4. 4.

    The argument seems to imply that theoretical entities and therefore theories are dispensable; hence the theoretician’s dilemma.

  5. 5.

    Cognitive researcher Johnson-Laird (1988) gave two answers to the theoretician's dilemma, both intended as a criticism of the behavioral approach: (1) Much of human behavior is spontaneous in the sense that it does not depend on external causes, and (2) granted that mental states exist, we should study them even if they are not necessary to formulate the laws of behavior. Point (1) is questionable because spontaneity does not imply lack of sensitivity to context; point (2), however, is well taken, but by the same token we can conclude that, if mental states have a historical origins then we should study them, even though that origin may not be necessary to formulate the laws of cognition.

  6. 6.

    To avoid mediational models, behaviorists could take the scalar property as a theoretical primitive and relegate to neuroscience the explication of its physiological basis. They could also elaborate the notion of generic stimulus and response class to encompass statistical classes, and then assume that stimulus duration would form statistical classes obeying Weber’s law. As Zuriff (1985) noted, mediation would be avoided by functionally (re)defined stimulus and response classes, the invariants of the learning episode (Machado, 1992, 1993).

  7. 7.

    In his 1615 essay "Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina," Galileo tries to reconcile the Copernican system with the doctrines of the Church. One of his famous remarks concerned scriptural interpretation: “Hence I should think it would be the part of prudence not to permit anyone to usurp scriptural texts and force them in some way to maintain any physical conclusion to be true [or false], when at some future time the senses and demonstrative or necessary reasons may show the contrary” (Galileo Galilei, 1957/1615, p. 187). Likewise, behavioral analysts should not reject or deny hypothetical constructs that might, upon further research, prove useful and true.

References

  1. Allan, L. G. (1998). The influence of the scalar timing model on human timing research. Behavioural Processes, 44, 101–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Allman, M. J., Teki, S., Griffiths, T. D., & Meck, W. H. (2014). Properties of the internal clock: First- and second-order principles of subjective time. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 743–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bachelard, G. (1968). The philosophy of No: A philosophy of the new scientific mind. [Trans. G. C. Waterston. New York: The Orion Press. (Originally published in 1940.)

  4. Bachelard, G. (1984). The new scientific spirit. (A. Goldhammer, trans.). Beacon Press. (Original work published 1934)

  5. Bunge, M. (1967). Analogy in quantum theory: From insight to nonsense. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 18, 265–286.

  6. Carvalho, M., Machado, A., & Vasconcelos, M. (2016). Animal timing: A synthetic approach. Animal Cognition, 19, 707–732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-016-0977-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Carvalho, M., Machado, A., & Tonneau, F. (2015). Learning in the temporal bisection task: Relative or absolute? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning. Cognition, 42, 67–81.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Catania, A. C. (1970). Reinforcement schedules and the psychophysical judgments: a study of some temporal properties of behavior. In W. N. Schoenfeld (Ed.), The theory of reinforcement schedules (pp. 1–42) Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Church, R. M. (2003). A concise introduction to scalar timing theory. In W. Meck (Ed.), Functional and neural mechanisms of interval timing (pp. 3–22). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

  10. Church, R. M. (2004). Temporal learning. In H. Pashler & C. R. Gallistel (Eds.), Stevens' handbook of experimental psychology, Vol. 3: Learning, motivation, and emotion (3rd ed.; pp. 365–393). New York: Wiley.

  11. Church, R. M., & Deluty, M. Z. (1977). Bisection of temporal intervals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 3, 216–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.9.2.160.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dews, P. B. (1970). The theory of fixed-interval responding. In W. N. Schoenfeld (Ed.), The theory of reinforcement schedules (pp. 43–61) Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Duhem, P. (1996). To save the phenomena: Essay on the concept of physical therapy from Plato to Galileo. In R. Ariew & P. Barker (Eds. and Trans.). Essays in the history and philosophy of science (pp. 131–156). Hackett Publishing Company: Indianapolis. (Original work published 1908)

  14. Eckard, M. L., & Lattal, K. A. (2020). The internal clock: A manifestation of a misguided mechanistic view of causation? Perspectives on Behavior Science, 43, 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-018-00189-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Farber, E. (1950). Chemical discoveries by means of analogies. Isis, 41(1), 20–26. https://doi.org/10.2307/226383.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fetterman, J. G., & Killeen, P. R. (1995). Categorical scaling of time: implications for clock-counter models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 21, 43–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Galileo Galilei. (1957). Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina. In S. Drake (Ed.), Discoveries and opinions of Galileo (pp. 173–216). New York: Anchor Books. Originally published in 1615.

  18. Gibbon, J., & Church, R. (1992). Comparison of variance and covariance patterns in parallel and serial theories of timing. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 57, 393–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gibbon, J., Malapani, C., Dale, C. L., & Gallistel, C. R. (1997). Toward a neurobiology of temporal cognition: Advances and challenges. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 7, 170–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Harris, D. F. (1912). The metaphor in science. Science, 36(922), 263–269. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.36.922.263.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hass, J., & Durstewitz, D. (2016). Time at the center, or time at the side? Assessing current models of time perception. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 8, 238–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.02.030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hempel, C. G. (1958). The theoretician’s dilemma. In H. Feigl, M. Scriven, & G. Maxwell (Eds.), Concepts, theories, and the mind-body problem (pp. 37–98). Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. II. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hineline, P. (1984). Editorial. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 41, 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hineline, P. (1990). The origins of environment-based psychological theory. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 53, 305–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Holton, G. (1988). Thematic origins of scientific thought: Kepler to Einstein (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hull, D. L. (1988). Science as a process: An evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Jammer, M. (1957). Concepts of force. New York, NY: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Johnson-Laird, P. (1988). The computer and the mind. Harvard University Press.

  29. Killeen, P., & Fetterman, G. (1993). The behavioral theory of timing: transition analyses. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 59, 411–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Killeen, P. R., Hall, S., & Bizo, L. A. (1999). A clock not wound runs down. Behavioural Processes, 45, 129–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Leak, T. M., & Gibbon, J. (1995). Simultaneous timing of multiple intervals: Implications of the scalar property. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 21, 3–19.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Leary, D. E. (Ed.). (1990). Metaphors in the history of psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Leatherdale, W. H. (1974). The role of analogy, model and metaphor in science. New York: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Machado, A. (1992). The future of behaviorism: An insider's perspective. In Paper presented at the 25th International Congress of Psychology. Brussels: Belgium.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Machado, A. (1993). Internal states: Necessary but not sufficient. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60, 469–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Machado, A., & Guilhardi, P. (2000). Shifts in the psychometric function and their implications for models of timing. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 25–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Machado, A., & Keen, R. (1999). Learning to Time (LET) or Scalar Expectancy Theory (SET)? A Critical Test of Two Models of Timing. Psychological Science, 10, 285–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Machado, A., Lourenço, O., & Silva, F. (2000). Facts, concepts, and theories: The shape of psychology’s epistemic triangle. Behavior & Philosophy, 28, 1–40.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Machado, A., Malheiro, M. T., & Erlhagen, W. (2009). Learning to time: A perspective. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 92, 423–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Machado, A., & Silva, F. (2007a). Toward a richer view of the scientific method: The role of conceptual analysis. American Psychologist, 62, 671–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Machado, A., & Silva, F. (2007b). On the clarification of concepts: A reply to Gallistel and Lau. American Psychologist, 62, 689–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Meck, W. H. (1996). Neuropharmacology of timing and time perception. Cognitive Brain Research, 3, 227–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Myung, I. J. (2000). The importance of complexity in model selection. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44, 190–204. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmps.1999.1283.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Roberts, S., & Church, R. M. (1978). Control of an internal clock. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 4, 318–337. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.4.4.318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Schneider, B. A. (1969). A two-state analysis of fixed-interval responding in the pigeon. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 677–687. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1969.12-677.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Stubbs, D. A. (1968). The discrimination of stimulus duration by pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 11, 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1968.11-223.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Zuriff, G. E. (1985). Behaviorism: A conceptual reconstruction. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

Armando Machado is a member of the William James Center for Research supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology. Armando Machado and Marcelo S. Caetano are members of the Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia sobre Comportamento, Cognição e Ensino, supported by the Brazilian National Research Council (CNPq, Grant # 465686/2014-1), the Coordination of Superior Level Staff Improvement (CAPES, Grant # 88887.136407/2017-00), and the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP, Grant # 2014/50909-8). PG would like to thank Dr. Robert F. Littleton for his ongoing support.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

    Armando Machado

  2. Beacon ABA Services, Inc., Leominster, MA, USA

    Paulo Guilhardi

  3. Universidade Federal do ABC (UFABC), Santo André, Brazil

    Marcelo S. Caetano

  4. University of Redlands, Redlands, CA, USA

    Francisco J. Silva

Authors
  1. Armando Machado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paulo Guilhardi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marcelo S. Caetano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Francisco J. Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Armando Machado.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

None of the authors has any conflicts of interest relevant to the research.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

The research reported here used no human or animal participants.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The acknowledgement section was updated in the original article to include the sentence “PG would like to thank Dr. Robert F. Littleton for his ongoing support”.The acknowledgement section was updated in the original article to include the sentence “PG would like to thank Dr. Robert F. Littleton for his ongoing support”.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Machado, A., Guilhardi, P., Caetano, M.S. et al. Rules of Conduct for Behavior Analysts in the Presence of Hypothetical Constructs: A Commentary on Eckard and Lattal (2020). Perspect Behav Sci 43, 791–802 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-020-00272-w

Download citation

Keywords

  • Behavior analysis
  • Hypothetical constructs
  • Internal clock models
  • Mediational theories
  • Temporal control