The Behavior Analyst

Citation data from 1970 to 1989 were examined in order to determine whether the “isolation” of the experimental analysis of behavior (EAB) that was originally documented by Krantz (1971, 1972) has persisted beyond the early 1970s. Our findings from analyses of the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (JEAB) and of related journals support the following conclusions: (1) In the 20-year period since 1969, JEAB has continued to cite its own articles (“self-cite”) at a higher rate than related journals; (2) JEAB’s self-citation rate decreased by a larger amount since 1969 than did that of related journals; and (3) JEAB was cited with diminishing frequency by some related journals during the 20-year period. These findings and other disciplinary comparisons provide information relevant to the issue of the health of behavior analysis and related specialties.

Psychotherapy research should ultimately benefit the psychotherapy client. Unfortunately, traditional psychotherapy research continues to have little influence on practicing clinicians and, therefore, does not benefit psychotherapy clients. As behavior analysts begin to show interest in this area of research, they may be in a position to improve its quality. We argue that traditional psychotherapy researchers have become prematurely wedded to a methodology that does not address the concerns of clinical audiences. Furthermore, we make a case for defining and evaluating psychotherapy data in terms of its capacity to influence both researchers and clinicians. We also suggest several alternative methods for gathering psychotherapy data based on the case formulation approach. We argue that this approach may be one of the most promising methods for gathering useful psychotherapy data.

The biologist Jacques Loeb is an important figure in the history of behavior analysis. Between 1890 and 1915, Loeb championed an approach to experimental biology that would later exert substantial influence on the work of B. F. Skinner and behavior analysis. This paper examines some of these sources of influence, with a particular emphasis on Loeb’s firm commitment to prediction and control as fundamental goals of an experimental life science, and how these goals were extended and broadened by Skinner. Both Loeb and Skinner adopted a pragmatic approach to science that put practical control of their subject matter above formal theory testing, both based their research programs on analyses of reproducible units involving the intact organism, and both strongly endorsed technological applications of basic laboratory science. For Loeb, but especially for Skinner, control came to mean something more than mere experimental or technological control for its own sake; it became synonomous with scientific understanding. This view follows from (a) the successful working model of science Loeb and Skinner inherited from Ernst Mach, in which science is viewed as human social activity, and effective practical action is taken as the basis of scientific knowledge, and (b) Skinner’s analysis of scientific activity, situated in the world of direct experience and related to practices arranged by scientific verbal communities. From this perspective, prediction and control are human acts that arise from and are maintained by social circumstances in which such acts meet with effective consequences.

This paper brings some data to bear on the criticisms, claims, and arguments that Skinner (a) denied or dismissed biological participation in behavior, (b) addressed it only late in his career or more often later than earlier, or (c) addressed it only because of the overwhelming evidence for it or the criticisms that he had overlooked it. For this, we coded Skinner’s every primary-source publication for three content categories (i.e., genetics, physiology, and evolution) and for the extent to which he addressed them (i.e., in publication titles, substantively, or in passing). Our findings are that Skinner addressed biological participation in over a third of his publications throughout his career, albeit more often later than earlier. The latter, however, is accounted for by an increase in his base rate of publication and in general conditions and specific events in his career, psychology, and science. The discussion addresses our research methods; the reasons for and refutations of the criticisms, claims, and arguments; and their sources.

Three strategic suggestions are offered to behavior analysts who are concerned with extending the interests of our discipline into domains traditionally assigned to the social sciences: (1) to expand our world-view perspectives beyond the boundaries commonly accepted by psychologists in general; (2) to build a cultural analytic framework upon the foundations we have developed for the study of individuals; and (3) to study the works of those social scientists whose views are generally compatible with, and complementary to, our own. Sociologist C. Wright Mills’ distinction between troubles and issues and anthropologist Marvin Harris’s principles of cultural materialism are related to topics raised by these three strategies. The pervasiveness of the “psychocentric” world view within psychology and the social sciences, and throughout our culture at large, is discussed from the points of view of Skinner, Mills, and Harris. It is suggested that a thorough commitment to radical behaviorism, and continuation of interaction between radical behaviorism and cultural materialism, are necessary for maintaining and extending an issues orientation within the discipline of behavior analysis and for guarding against dilutions and subversions of that orientation by “deviation-dampening” contingencies that exist in our profession and in our culture at large.

We propose that individuals who are recipients or potential recipients of treatment designed to change their behavior have the right to: (1) a therapeutic environment, (2) services whose overriding goal is personal welfare, (3) treatment by a competent behavior analyst, (4) programs that teach functional skills, (5) behavioral assessment and ongoing evaluation, and (6) the most effective treatment procedures available.