The adoption of determinism and the use of the term “control” when referring to relations of influence between environment and the actions of organisms seem to suggest that there is no room for freedom in behavioral science. Nevertheless, some behavior analysts have articulated meanings of the word “freedom” that are wholly consistent with the epistemological assumptions of radical behaviorism. Some of these meanings, like those elaborated by Skinner, Baum and Catania, are relatively well-known in the behavior-analytical community and had some measure of conceptual or practical impact. In order to expand the possible behavior-analytic meanings of “freedom,” this article aimed to revisit and discuss a unique and little-known formulation on the subject elaborated by Israel Goldiamond. To these ends, we present (a) Goldiamond’s first remarks on freedom; (b) his subsequent proposal of a nonlinear behavior analysis; (c) the concepts of degrees of freedom, degrees of coercion and “genuine choice”; and (d) the types of coercion identified by Goldiamond that ultimately limit freedom in different social contexts. This is followed by a discussion on how and to what extent Goldiamond’s formulation constitutes an expansion of the behavior-analytic meanings of “freedom.” Similarities and differences between Goldiamond´s formulations and those of Skinner, Baum and Catania are also discussed.
Abib, J. A. D. (2016). Cenário de uma revolução psicológica. Revista Brasileira de Terapia Comportamental e Cognitiva, 18, 27–39.
Baum, W. M. (2017). Understanding behaviorism: Behavior, culture, and evolution (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119143673
Brandenburg, O. J., & Weber, L. N. D. (2005). Autoconhecimento e liberdade no behaviorismo radical. Psico-USF, 10, 87–92.
Catania, A. C. (1980). Freedom of choice: A behavioral analysis. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 14, 97–145. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60160-7
Cerutti, D., & Catania, A. C. (1997). Pigeons’ preference for free choice: Number of keys versus key area. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 349–56. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1997.68-349
Cruz, R. N. (2010). Possíveis relações entre o contexto histórico e a recepção do behaviorismo radical. Psicologia: Ciência e Profissão, 30, 478–491. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1590/S1414-98932010000300004
Dittrich, A. (2010). Sentidos possíveis de “liberdade” no behaviorismo radical. In M. M. C. Hübner, M. R. Garcia, P. R. Abreu, E. N. P. Cillo, & P. B. Faleiros (Eds.), Sobre comportamento e cognição: Vol. 25. Análise experimental do comportamento, cultura, questões conceituais e filosóficas (pp. 13–17). Santo André: ESETec.
Gimenez, L. S., Layng, T. V. J., & Andronis, P. T. (2003). Contribuições de Israel Goldiamond para o desenvolvimento da análise do comportamento. In M. Z. S. Brandão, F. C. S. Conte, F. S. Brandão, Y. K. Ingberman, C. B. Moura, V. M. Silva, & S. M. Oliane (Eds.), Sobre comportamento e cognição: Vol. 11. A história e os avanços, a seleção por consequências em ação (pp. 34–46). Santo André: ESETec.
Goldiamond, I. (1965). Justified and unjustified alarm over behavioral control. In O. Milton (Ed.), Behavior disorders: Perspectives and trends (pp. 237–261). New York: J. B. Lipincott.
Goldiamond, I. (1975a). Singling out behavior modification for legal regulation: Some effects on patient care, psychotherapy, and research in general. Arizona Law Review, 17, 105–126.
Goldiamond, I. (1975b). Alternative sets as a framework for behavioral formulations and research. Behaviorism, 3, 49–86.
Goldiamond, I. (1976). Protection of human subjects and patients: A social contingency analysis of distinctions between research and practice, and its implications. Behaviorism, 4, 1–41.
Goldiamond, I. (1984). Training parent trainers and ethicists in nonlinear analysis of behavior. In R. F. Dangel & R. A. Polster (Eds.), Parent training: Foundations of research and practice (pp. 504–546). New York: Guilford.
Goldiamond, I. (2002). Toward a constructional approach to social problems: Ethical and constitutional issues raised by applied behavior analysis. Behavior and Social Issues, 11, 108–197. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v11i2.92
Hamilton, L. F. T. (2012). Os usos do termo “liberdade” no anarquismo de Bakunin e no behaviorismo radical de Skinner (Master’s thesis). Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo. Retrieved from https://doi.org/www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/47/47132/tde-05102012-112802/publico/hamilton_me.pdf
Hunziker, M. H. L. (2017). Dogmas sobre o controle aversivo. Acta Comportamentalia, 25, 85–100.
Laurenti, C. (2009). Criatividade, liberdade e dignidade: Impactos do darwinismo no behaviorismo radical. Scientia Studia, 7, 251–269.
Layng, T. V. J. (2009). The search for an effective clinical behavior analysis: The nonlinear thinking of Israel Goldiamond. The Behavior Analyst, 32, 163–184.
Michael, J. (1982). Distinguishing between discriminative and motivational functions of stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 149–155. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1982.37-149
Polanyi, K. (2001). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our times (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Rost, K. A., Hemmes, N. S., & Alvero, A. M. (2014). Effects of the relative values of alternatives on preference for free-choice in humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 102, 241–251. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.99
Sidman, M. (1989). Coercion and its fallout. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. East Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. Middlesex, UK: Penguin Books.
Skinner, B. F. (1984). The operational analysis of psychological terms. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 547–581. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00027187
Steinfeld, R. J. (2001). Coercion, contract, and free labor in the nineteenth century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wexler, D. B. (1973). Token and taboo: Behavior modification, token economies, and the law. California Law Review, 61, 81–109. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38X507
Widerquist, K. (2013). Independence, propertylessness, and basic income: A theory of freedom as the power to say no. Exploring the basic income guarantee (1st ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-31309-6
The authors would like to thank Bruno Strapasson, Gabriel de Luca, Julia Fonseca, Junio Rezende and Robson Cruz for critical readings and helpful discussions. The authors would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
About this article
Cite this article
de Fernandes, R.C., Dittrich, A. Expanding the Behavior-Analytic Meanings of “Freedom”: the Contributions of Israel Goldiamond. Behav. Soc. Iss. 27, 4–19 (2018). https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v27i0.8248
- nonlinear behavior analysis
- Israel Goldiamond