The Behavior Analyst

This article presents a behavioral systems approach to organizational design and applies that approach to the teaching of behavior analysis. This systems approach consists of three components: goal-directed systems design, behavioral systems engineering, and performance management. This systems approach is applied to the Education Board and Teaching Behavior Analysis Special Interest Group of the Association for Behavior Analysis, with a conclusion that we need to emphasize the recruitment of students and the placement and maintenance of alumni. This systems approach is also applied at the scale of the individual faculty member running a university-based training system and is seen to generate special approaches to textbook preparation, undergraduate research, colloquium and conference attendance, career counseling, preparation for graduate examinations, graduate training and graduate seminars, and classroom alternatives to the traditional lecture.

In this paper, I attempt to describe the implications of dynamical approaches to science for research in the experimental study of behavior. I discuss the differences between classical and dynamical science, and focus on how dynamical science might see replication differently from classical science. Focusing on replication specifically, I present some problems that the classical approach has in dealing with dynamics and multiple causation. I ask about the status and meaning of “error” variance, and whether it may be a potent source of information. I show how a dynamical approach can handle the sort of control by past events that is hard for classical science to understand. These concerns require, I believe, an approach to variability that is quite different from the one most researchers currently employ. I suggest that some of these problems can be overcome by a notion of “behavioral state,” which is a distillation of an organism’s history.

Publications of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) maintain that years of research in education have failed to produce a useful technology for teachers. Little is said to be known about teaching children beyond the potential of new findings such as mastery learning, time on task, and features of an appropriate school climate. These latter conclusions are in stark contrast to the large body of useful findings in the behavior analysis literature. Several possible reasons are discussed for the discrepancy in views between behavior analysts and educational researchers. The lack of acknowledgement of behavior analysis is viewed as a serious problem because of the control that the educational research establishment exerts over federal funding of research and the training of teachers. There is a growing use of some of the aspects of behavior analysis by educational researchers; however, the derivation is not acknowledged and there is little enlightenment about radical behaviorism. It is suggested that ABA should countercontrol the influence of AERA by incorporating doctoral students in educational research as students of behavior analysis, teaching the complexity of behaviorism, teaching the positions of the opposing camp to behavior analysis students. ABA can take an aggressive role in countercontrolling AERA by forming committees to insure (a) quality of treatment, (b) funding representation in government, (c) protection and qualified review of untenured behavior analysts, (d) expansion of certification.

Behavior analysis risks intellectual isolation unless it integrates its explanations with evolutionary theory. Rule-governed behavior is an example of a topic that requires an evolutionary perspective for a full understanding. A rule may be defined as a verbal discriminative stimulus produced by the behavior of a speaker under the stimulus control of a long-term contingency between the behavior and fitness. As a discriminative stimulus, the rule strengthens listener behavior that is reinforced in the short run by socially mediated contingencies, but which also enters into the long-term contingency that enhances the listener’s fitness. The long-term contingency constitutes the global context for the speaker’s giving the rule. When a rule is said to be “internalized,” the listener’s behavior has switched from short- to long-term control. The fitness-enhancing consequences of long-term contingencies are health, resources, relationships, or reproduction. This view ties rules both to evolutionary theory and to culture. Stating a rule is a cultural practice. The practice strengthens, with short-term reinforcement, behavior that usually enhances fitness in the long run. The practice evolves because of its effect on fitness. The standard definition of a rule as a verbal statement that points to a contingency fails to distinguish between a rule and a bargain (“If you’ll do X, then I’ll do Y”), which signifies only a single short-term contingency that provides mutual reinforcement for speaker and listener. In contrast, the giving and following of a rule (“Dress warmly; it’s cold outside”) can be understood only by reference also to a contingency providing long-term enhancement of the listener’s fitness or the fitness of the listener’s genes. Such a perspective may change the way both behavior analysts and evolutionary biologists think about rule-governed behavior.

The scientific status of History was compared to other sciences in the critical areas event selection, investigative operations, and theory construction. First, in terms of events studied, history is regarded as a quasi-scientific study of past events. However, viewed from the science of behavior’s perspective of what historians actually do, history becomes a study of current records. As a study of currently existing records, not the non-existent past, history has potential to become a science. Second, like other scientists, historians may undertake manipulative investigations: they can locate the presence and absence of a condition in records and thereby determine its relation to other recorded phenomena. A limitation has been the lack of quantification that results from emphasis on the uniqueness of things rather than on their communality. Scientific training would facilitate viewing similar things as instances of a larger class that could be counted. Another limitation that cannot be easily overcome is the inability to produce raw data. This limitation has created problems in theoretical practices, the third area of comparison, because theoretical constructions have frequently been substituted for missing data. This problem too could be reduced through scientific training, particularly in other behavior sciences. An authentic science of history is possible.