Sketch of J. R. Kantor’s Psychological Interbehavioral Field Theory

Delprato, Dennis J.; Smith, Noel W.

doi:10.1007/bf03395686

Cited by 10 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In comparing and contrasting the forgoing with Skinner’s ( 1945b ) radical behaviorism, I assign Jay Moore’s ( 1975 ), “On the Principle of Operationism in a Science of Behavior” (see also Moore, 1985 , 2011 , 2013 ; Schneider & Morris, 1987 ). For J. R. Kantor’s (1888–1984) Interbehavioral psychology, I assign Mountjoy and Cone’s ( 2006 ) chapter, “A Biographical Sketch of Jacob Robert Kantor” and Delprato and Smith’s ( 2009 ), “Sketch of J. R. Kantor’s Interbehavioral Field Theory.” The latter introduces field or systems theory (see Midgley & Morris, 1988 ), which complements the readings on Aristotle’s Four Causes and Niko Tinbergen’s ( 1963 ) four “Whys,” which I will assign in the future (i.e., mechanism, adaptive value, ontogeny, phylogeny). For a contrast between interbehavioral psychology and behavior analysis, I include Kantor’s ( 1970 ) critique, “The Experimental Analysis of Behavior (TEAB).” For a comparison, I assign Morris’s ( 1982 ) “Some Relationships between Interbehavioral Psychology and Radical Behaviorism.” In the future, I may address interbehavioral psychology as a topic among other behaviorisms (e.g., teleological behaviorism, functional contextualism) to illustrate that Skinner was not alone in attempting to naturalize psychology (see O’Donohue & Kitchener, 1999 ; Zilio & Carrera, 2021 ).…”

Section: Functional Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching a Course on the History of Behavior Analysis

Morris

2022

Perspect Behav Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teaching the history of behavior analysis can be approached in many ways. One is to embed history in courses on the field’s discipline and subdisciplines (e.g., its basic and applied sciences and their conceptual foundations) and practice. Another is to teach courses on the histories of the discipline and subdisciplines and practice. Still another is to teach a stand-alone course that includes these approaches and more (e.g., their integration, relations with other sciences, the influence of U.S. history and culture). The purpose of this article is to foster teaching the stand-alone course. It has four sections. The first addresses structural considerations: course titles, catalog descriptions, curricula, certification, and accreditation. The second addresses contextual considerations: purposes of teaching history; distinctions between history and historiography; and starting points in selecting textbooks. The third addresses functional considerations: course content organized by topics and their required and recommended readings. The fourth discusses how the course might be revised by eliminating topics (e.g., the Middle Ages), expanding topics and subtopics (e.g., the behaviorisms, philosophy of science) and adding topics and subtopics (e.g., institutional history; diversity, inclusion, and equity). Given the field’s continuing development as a science, system, and practice and the rapid growth in its number and variety of its members, its history is becoming its common core—and a means of teaching it. The course elucidates the field’s integrity; incorporates the entirety of its community of students, scientists, scholars, and practitioners; and advance its coherence as a cultural practice.

show abstract

Section: Functional Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching a Course on the History of Behavior Analysis

Morris

2022

Perspect Behav Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Kantor’s Interbehavioral Field (IBF) Theory ( Delprato & Smith, 2009 ) represents an extension of field theories put forward by Einstein and Infeld (1938) and later Dewey and Bentley (1949) to the field of psychology. Rather than analyzing the mechanical events that control behavior, the IBF is made up of interacting components that together produce psychological events.…”

Section: Interbehaviorism Challenge 1: Interbehaviorism Is Not Necessmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Dixon

Belisle

2021

Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper by Hayes and Fryling (2019) seeks to inform readers that the Kantorian system of Interbehaviorism has been misunderstood and misrepresented by contextual behavior scientists. Furthermore, these authors suggest that much is to be gained by embracing the system developed by Kantor, most importantly that being large scale system building efforts. We disagree with this position, and find the Kantorian system to be of questionable relevancy and at risk of potential extinction within the behavioral community. We also have concerns that perhaps the insights provided by Hayes and Fryling will fail in recruitment of additional members to the Interbehavioral cause. Although the overarching theme of Interbehaviorism is present within emerging dynamical approaches to behavior science, adopting the vernacular of Kantor may be unnecessary to continue his tradition. We recommend allowing empirical selection to run its course in determining the eventual fate of Kantor’s Interbehaviorism.

show abstract