A Historical Perspective on the Future of Behavior Science

Abstract

Like all natural sciences, behavior science has much to offer toward an understanding of the world. The extent to which the promise of behavior science is realized, though, depends upon the extent to which we keep what we know before us. This paper considers fundamental concepts in behavior science, including the concepts of behavior, stimulation, setting conditions, and language. In considering these concepts, we revisit comments from B. F. Skinner and J. R. Kantor and also consider some areas of behavior analytic research and the implications they have for reconsidering long-held assumptions about the analysis of behavior. We hope that, in considering our foundations, the vitality and strength of the discipline might be enhanced, our impact on science improved, and our future secured.Keywords Behavior . Behavior science . Stimulation . System building . Language All natural sciences have the potential to improve our understanding of the world. The natural science of behavior has the potential to improve our understanding of behavior, the subject matter of the discipline. The extent to which this potential is realized, though, depends upon several factors. These factors involve fundamental issues and have grave consequences for the entire discipline, the entire group of workers in behavior science, and the impact our discipline will make to the understanding of our part of the world, behavior. Indeed, much is at stake.Along these lines, we have previously addressed the value of becoming involved in interdisciplinary work and the problems associated with doing so in ways that diminish

Selection by consequence: A response to Hayes and Fryling (2019)

“…The authors are compelling in their portrayal of Kantor’s analysis and contextualism, yet history has not been kind to Kantor’s legacy. The “misunderstanding argument” has been reported elsewhere (e.g., Hayes & Fryling, 2015 ), and could be interpreted as an example of a complexity bias in which superiority of scientific theory is somehow better if complex than simple. From an evolutionary perspective, complexity only remains if complexity aids in survival beyond simplicity – and when it comes to scientific theorizing, simplicity is everything (i.e., we seek the simplest explanations that fit the data best).…”

“…The paper by Hayes and Fryling (2019) is the most recent installation calling for behavior analysts and contextual behavior scientists to more carefully understand the value of Interbehaviorism in modern science of behavior. Kantor’s impact has been minimal to date and the authors describe here and elsewhere (e.g., Hayes & Fryling, 2015 ) that the marginalized respect, relevance, and referencing of Kantor within behavioral psychology comes from a misunderstanding of the Interbehavioral system. The authors are compelling in their portrayal of Kantor’s analysis and contextualism, yet history has not been kind to Kantor’s legacy.…”

“…Is adoption of Interbehaviorism worth the scientific cost of greater model complexity and learning an austere vernacular? Whether that utility is at the pragmatic applied level, or even at the philosophical discourse level, we are concerned that the present narrative on the superiority of Kantor (also see Hayes & Fryling, 2015 ; 2019 ) still lacks a persuasive argument for adoption.…”

Are Brazilian Behavior Analysts Publishing Outside the Box? A Survey of General Science Media

“…Nonetheless, no substantive change in the low dissemination scenario presented in this study would be anticipated. As noted, BA isolation, diversity, and survival are persistent topics of concern (Baum, 2000;Carr, 1996;Fantino, 2008;Hayes & Fryling, 2015;Holth, 2014;Lindsley, 1987;Michael, 1980;Poling, 2010;Vyse, 2013). However, as previously mentioned, at least ten articles on BA dissemination strategies intending to equip and stimulate behavior analysts to augment such scarce endeavors have been published (Becirevic, 2015;Normand, 2014).…”

“…As a consequence, critics of the former have characterized BA as a closed, restrictive, and even perishing community (Hearst, 1967;Rutherford, 2009;Wendt, 1949), although some have rebutted such claims (Roediger, 2004). Such isolation strongly influences persistent discussions on BA life expectancy (Baum, 2000;Carr, 1996;Fantino, 2008;Hayes & Fryling, 2015;Michael, 1980;Poling, 2010;Vyse, 2013; for an entire issue on the topic, see Holth, 2014) and calls for equipping and encouraging behavior analysts to disseminate their findings more broadly (Bailey, 1991;Freedman, 2015;Smith, 2016).…”