Behavior and Social Issues

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 68–80 | Cite as

Will Cultural Analysis Become a Science?

  • Mark A. MattainiEmail author


In this paper, the author argues that the concept of the metacontingency is not yet well enough developed to be very scientifically useful, although developers like Glenn and Malott (2004) should be encouraged to pursue more thorough development. By contrast, systems theory which Malott and Glenn (2006) also emphasize, may have real and immediate utility in the analysis of cultural systems. In fact, systems theory suggests certain inherent limitations to the metacontingency construct as it is most commonly conceptualized, although alternative models may prove more intellectually coherent and useful. This paper argues that modest work emphasizing observational studies and relatively simple experimental efforts to influence networks of interlocking contingencies have greater promise at this point in the development of a natural science of cultural analysis than do continuing efforts to refine abstract conceptual schemes without grounding in data.


Applied cultural analysis metacontingencies interlocking cultural practices 


  1. Bates, M. (1990/1950). The nature of natural history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biglan, A. (1995). Changing cultural practices: A contextualist framework for intervention research. Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bronfenbrenner, U. (Ed.). (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Capra, F. (1996). The web of life. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  5. Embry, D. D. (2004). Community-based prevention using simple, low-cost, evidence-based kernels and behavior vaccines. Journal of Community Psychology, 32, 575–591. Scholar
  6. Farmer, P. (2003). Pathologies of power: Health, human rights, and the new war on the poor. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  7. Glenn, S. S., & Malott, M. E. (2004). Complexity and selection: Implications for organizational change. Behavior and Social Issues, 13, 89–106. Scholar
  8. Harris, M. (1979). Cultural materialism: The struggle for a science of culture. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  9. Harris, M. (2001). The rise of anthropological theory: A history of theories of culture (updated ed.). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  10. Houmanfar, R., & Rodrigues, N. J. (2006). The metacontingency and the behavioral contingency: Points of contact and departure. Behavior and Social Issues, 15, 13–30. Scholar
  11. Hudson, C. G. (2000). From Social Darwinism to self-organization: Implications for social change theory. Social Service Review, 74, 533–559. Scholar
  12. Lee, V. L. (1988). Beyond behaviorism. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Lutzker, J. R., Bigelow, K. M., Doctor, R. M., Gershater, R. M., & Greene, B. F. (1998). An ecobehavioral model for the prevention and treatment of child abuse and neglect: History and applications. In J. K. Lutzker (Ed.), Handbook of child abuse and neglect (pp. 239–266). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  14. Malott, M. E. (2003). The paradox of organizational change: Engineering organizations with behavioral systems analysis. Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  15. Malott, M. E., & Glenn, S. S. (2006). Targets of intervention in cultural and behavioral change. Behavior and Social Issues, 15, 31–56. Scholar
  16. Malott, R. W., Trojan Suarez, E. A. & Malott, M. E. (2003). Principles of behavior (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Marr, M. J. (2006). Behavior analysis and social dynamics: Some questions and concerns. Behavior and Social Issues, 15, 57–67. Scholar
  18. Mattaini, M. A. (2004). Systems, metacontingencies, and cultural analysis: Are we there yet? Behavior and Social Issues, 13, 124–130. Scholar
  19. Mattaini, M. A. (2006). Violent and coercive behaviors among youth: A Kohonen Network cluster analysis. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  20. Mattaini, M. A. (in press). The ecosystems perspective: A scientific view. In K. M. Sowers & C. N. Dulmus (Eds.), Comprehensive Handbook of Social Work and Social Welfare. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Miller, W. R., & Carroll, K. M. (2006). Drawing the scene together: Ten principles, ten recommendations. In W. R. Miller & K. M. Carroll (Eds.), Rethinking substance abuse (pp. 293–311). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  22. Sandaker, I. (2006). How should behavior analysis interact effectively with the social sciences? Behavior and Social Issues, 15, 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  24. Skinner, B. F. (1987). Selection by consequences. In B. F. Skinner, Upon further reflection (pp. 51–63). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  25. Skinner, B. F. (1987). Upon further reflection. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  26. Todorov, J. C. (2005). Laws and the complex control of behavior. Behavior and Social Issues, 14, 86–91. Scholar
  27. Ulman, J. D. (1998). Toward a more complete science of human behavior: Behaviorology plus institutional economics. Behavior and Social Issues, 8, 195–217. Scholar
  28. Ulman, J. D. (2004). Institutions and macrocontingencies: Comments on Glenn and Malott’s “Complexity and selection”. Behavior and Social Issues, 13, 147–151. Scholar
  29. von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory. New York: George BrazillerGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Mark A. Mattaini 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jane Addams College of Social WorkUniversity of IllinoisChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations