The Nature and Value of Scientific System Building: The Case of Interbehaviorism

Abstract

developed and promoted an often underappreciated psychological system he called interbehaviorism that attempted to organize scientific values into a coherent system of psychology. Kantor insisted that in all scientific behavior the scientist needed to differentiate between constructs and events. If we were to develop constructs it would be only after careful observation of the actual events in context. He felt that his mission of forging naturalistic constructs for psychological events could be achieved only through scientific system building, and this was the activity that consumed his entire career. The present paper focuses on scientific system construction with the intent of (a) clarifying the nature and value of scientific system construction from Kantor's perspective, (b) articulating Kantor's systembuilding procedure, and (c) outlining the system of interbehavioral psychology produced in accordance with that procedure.

Understanding Observational Learning: An Interbehavioral Approach

“…Indeed, if one values such comprehensiveness, our most basic concepts and principles must be relevant to, and provide an account of observational learning. Moreover, this comprehensiveness is only valuable when it is achieved within the context of validity (internal consistency) and significance (external consistency within the greater field of the sciences; see Clayton, Hayes, & Swain, 2005;Kantor, 1958). The interbehavioral perspective is particularly valuable in this regard.…”

An Interbehavioral Analysis of Memory

“…However, such awareness does highlight the importance of fully articulating and examining one's own philosophy with respect to events (see Kantor, 1958;Kantor & Smith, 1975). For this reason interbehaviorists have suggested that an articulation of philosophical assumptions is the goal of all systemization in science (Clayton, Hayes, & Swain, 2005;Kantor, 1958).…”

Pragmatism and a-ontologicalism in a science of behavior.

“…The fewer the differences of two views in terms of practical or tangible outcomes, the relatively more important becomes the social context in which they emerge. Science, like any other activity, is subject to cultural factors (Clayton, Hayes, & Swain, 2005). Cultural heritage and the zeitgeist influence what is collectively believed in a particular period of time.…”