Expanding the Behavior-Analytic Meanings of “Freedom”: the Contributions of Israel Goldiamond

Abstract

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.

References

  1. Abib, J. A. D. (2016). Cenário de uma revolução psicológica. Revista Brasileira de Terapia Comportamental e Cognitiva, 18, 27–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baum, W. M. (2017). Understanding behaviorism: Behavior, culture, and evolution (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119143673

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brandenburg, O. J., & Weber, L. N. D. (2005). Autoconhecimento e liberdade no behaviorismo radical. Psico-USF, 10, 87–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Goldiamond, I. (1975b). Alternative sets as a framework for behavioral formulations and research. Behaviorism, 3, 49–86.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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

  16. Hunziker, M. H. L. (2017). Dogmas sobre o controle aversivo. Acta Comportamentalia, 25, 85–100.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Laurenti, C. (2009). Criatividade, liberdade e dignidade: Impactos do darwinismo no behaviorismo radical. Scientia Studia, 7, 251–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Polanyi, K. (2001). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our times (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sidman, M. (1989). Coercion and its fallout. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. East Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. Middlesex, UK: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Steinfeld, R. J. (2001). Coercion, contract, and free labor in the nineteenth century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ramon Cardinali de Fernandes.

Additional information

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

Keyword

  • freedom
  • coercion
  • nonlinear behavior analysis
  • choice
  • Israel Goldiamond