Molecular (moment‐to‐moment) and molar (aggregate) analyses of behavior

Abstract

Ten meanings or usages of the terms molecular and molar analyses are based on (1) numbers of responses, (2) durations of activities, (3) levels, (4) scales, (5) contiguity versus correlation, (6) behavioral standards, (7) function with or without structure, (8) local versus global phenomena, and (9) control by shaping of sequential moment-to-moment behavior. These usages reveal divisive viewpoints along with ambiguities in the Law of Effect, the definition of an operant, response strength, response probability, random behavior, time allocation, shaping, controlled versus uncontrolled operants, and roles for ordinary language. Usage 10 is less divisive and combines, and in that sense unifies, molecular behavior, defined as shaped moment-to-moment sequential behaving, and molar, defined as averages of aggregates of those shaped responses. It combines shaping, that establishes and changes operant behaviors, and strengthening that changes the amounts of those shaped behaviors. I conclude that general behavioral theory will combine strengthening with such methods as parametric, hybrid, or nonparametric shaping, and will use computational methods to simulate moment-to-moment behavior streams from which any aggregates of theoretical interest may be computed. Such a synthesis may not require different levels, scales, or new scientific paradigms. Key words: molecular and molar analyses, moment-to-moment and aggregate methods, shaping and strengthening effects of reinforcement, plain English and scientific language, combined theory I am indebted to Jack Marr whose editorial comments on earlier drafts of this paper contributed materially to it. His comments were always helpful role models of conceptual sophistication, breadth of knowledge, and scientific rigor.

Moles and Molecules

“…The first question Shimp addresses is the molar/molecular (M/M) distinction when based on the number of responses involved. Shimp (2020; all references to this article will drop the year, and the name will be familiarized to that of my friend Charlie. Except when I get exasperated)—accurately noted that the database for both M and M typically comprise thousands of responses.…”

“…Well, Charlie (Shimp, 2020) has finally come out of estivation. And look at what proudly follows along!…”

Behavior, process, and scale: Comments on Shimp (2020), “Molecular (moment‐to‐moment) and molar (aggregate) analyses of behavior”

“…The novel might induce one to praise the writing, whereas the newspaper might induce one to argue with one's neighbor. Shimp (2020) fails to grasp the importance of function when he presents a caricature of the multiscale molar view by conflating eating chips with eating beef Wellington.…”

“…In his discussion Shimp (2020) uses the phrase “moment‐to‐moment” many times. Two usages stand out: moment‐to‐moment “shaping;” and moment‐to‐moment “sequential structures.” Both usages appear to me to entail small time scale.…”

“…Serving a tennis ball, playing a piece on the piano, eating a meal—these are all integrated wholes. I am unsure what Shimp (2020) intends by the phrase “moment‐to‐moment,” but if it is meant to convey control at moments such that one discrete unit leads to the next and that complexity of behavior is built by accreting such discrete units, then it is clearly misguided. Lashley (1961/1951), in his classic paper, “The problem of serial order in behavior,” pointed out the impossibility of characterizing behavior extended in time by such “moment‐to‐moment” analysis.…”