The Psychological Record

, Volume 68, Issue 2, pp 267–272 | Cite as

J. R. Kantor: Theory as the Basic Research Instrument

  • Emilio Ribes Iñesta
Theoretical Article


J. R. Kantor must be recognized for his contributions to the subject matter and logic of the theory of psychological phenomena. Kantor stressed the distinction between biological and psychological behavior and proposed the category of the interbehavioral field as a logical frame to develop an adequate psychological system. In this article, the author describes the formulation of a general behavior theory in accordance with Kantor’s proposal and illustrates some systematic and heuristic achievements in such a direction.


Field theory J. R. Kantor Interbehavioral segment General behavior theory Molar analysis 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that he has no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Studies

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the author.


  1. Hanson, N. R. (1971). Observation and explanation: A guide to philosophy of science. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  2. Jenkins, H. M., & Moore, B. R. (1973). The form of the auto-shaped response with food or water reinforcers. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 20, 163–181.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Kantor, J. R. (1924). Principles of psychology, Vol. 1. New York, NY: Knopf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kantor, J. R. (1926). Principles of psychology, Vol. 2. New York, NY: Knopf.Google Scholar
  5. Kantor, J. R. (1953). Logic of modern science. Chicago, IL: Principia Press.Google Scholar
  6. Kantor, J. R. (1958). Interbehavioral psychology: A sample of scientific system construction. Chicago, IL: Principia Press.Google Scholar
  7. Palacios, H. (2016). Medidas molares y análisis no líneal de los datos (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Xalapa, México: Universidad Veracruzana.Google Scholar
  8. Ribes, E. (1994). The behavioral dimensions of scientific work. Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis, 20, 169–194.Google Scholar
  9. Ribes, E. (1997). Causality and contingency: Some conceptual considerations. The Psychological Record, 47, 619–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ribes, E. (2003). Concepts and theories: Relation to scientific categories. In K. A. Lattal & P. N. Chase (Eds.), Behavior theory and philosophy (pp. 147–164). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ribes, E. (2007). Estados y límites del campo, medios de contacto, y análisis molar del comportamiento: Reflexiones teóricas. Acta Comportamentalia, 15, 229–259.Google Scholar
  12. Ribes, E. (2010). Teoría de la conducta: Avances y extensiones. Mexico City, Mexico: Trillas.Google Scholar
  13. Ribes, E. (2017). El estudio científico de la conducta individual: Introducción a la teoría de la psicología. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
  14. Ribes, E., & López, F. (1985). Teoría de la conducta: Un análisis de campo y paramétrico. Mexico City, Mexico: Trillas.Google Scholar
  15. Ribes, E., & Torres, C. (2000). The spatial distribution of behavior under varying frequencies of temporally scheduled water delivery. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 73, 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ribes, E., Torres, C., Correa, L., & Montes, E. (2006). Effects of random-time schedules on the spatial distribution of behavior in rats. Behavioural Processes, 73, 41–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. New York, NY: Barnes & Noble.Google Scholar
  18. Schoenfeld, W. N. (1969). J. R. Kantor’s Objective Psychology of Grammar and Psychology and Logic: A retrospective appreciation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, (2), 329–347.Google Scholar
  19. Schoenfeld, W. N., & Cole, B. K. (1972). Stimulus schedules: The t-T systems. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  20. Schoenfeld, W. N., & Farmer, J. (1970). Reinforcement schedules and “the behavior stream.”. In W. N. Schoenfeld (Ed.), The theory of reinforcement schedules (pp. 215–245). New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  21. Skinner, B. F. (1948). ‘Superstition’ in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 168–172.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford, England: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centro de Estudios e Investigaciones en Conocimiento y Aprendizaje HumanoUniversity of VeracruzXalapaMexico

Personalised recommendations