Toward the unification of molecular and molar analyses

Abstract

Three categories of behavior analysis may be called molecular, molar, and unified. Molecular analyses focus on how manual shaping segments moment-to-moment behaving into new, unified, hierarchically organized patterns. Manual shaping is largely atheoretical, qualitative, and practical. Molar analyses aggregate behaviors and then compute a numerical average for the aggregate. Typical molar analyses involve average rate of, or average time allocated to, the aggregated behaviors. Some molar analyses have no known relation to any behavior stream. Molar analyses are usually quantitative and often theoretical. Unified analyses combine automated shaping of moment-to-moment behaving and molar aggregates of the shaped patterns. Unified controlling relations suggest that molar controlling relations like matching confound shaping and strengthening effects of reinforcement. If a molecular analysis is about how reinforcement organizes individual behavior moment by moment, and a molar analysis is about how reinforcement encourages more or less of an activity aggregated over time, then a unified analysis handles both kinds of analyses. Only theories engendered by computer simulation appear to be able to unify all three categories of behavior analysis.

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

“…In contrast to assuming this awkward simultaneous dependence and independence, Staddon (2016, p. 286) concluded a careful and broad discussion of molar matching by writing "Matching looks like a byproduct of the negative feedback of the procedure interacting with a quite variable set of dynamic reward-following processes." Staddon's view is related to what I am here calling Usage 10 which combines moment-to-moment shaping and aggregate strengthening effects of reinforcement (Shimp, 2013(Shimp, , 2014. Shaping will appear and disappear as we examine various usages; it will appear as we examine molecular, moment-to-moment sequential structure of behavior, and it will disappear as we examine molar aggregates and analogies offered by molar theorists to describe and explain the relation between molecular and molar analyses.…”

“…Given these provisional considerations, Usage 10 has four parts, (1) methods for shaping of moment-to-moment behaving into desired complex operants, (2) constructing aggregates of the shaped operants, (3) counting operants in aggregates and constructing empirical functions that show how statistics (usually averages) of aggregated shaped patterns depend on experimental parameters, and (4) developing computational simulation theories to describe and explain the empirical functions. This summary provides the information necessary for present purposes; further details are available in Shimp (2013Shimp ( , 2014 and Shimp et al (2012).…”

Porque a análise de Baum (2012): “Rethinking reinforcement: allocation, induction and contingency” é importante.

“…Caso se insira na análise da condição um estímulo contextual (o histórico do Participante 3 como aluno de ciências biológicas), pode-se, inequivocamente, fazer uma análise molar. Isso ilustra uma categoria de análise unificada, conforme sugerida por Shimp (2013).…”

“…Embora a elegância enquanto postulado não seja observável, podem-se observar as decorrências do postulado em diversos campos do conhecimento científico (Glynn, 2010). A análise molar é frequentemente teórica (Baum, 2002;Shimp, 2013), mas não ignora os dados, como Baum (2012) explicita em diversos momentos. Baum também propõe voltar-se sempre para os dados, em detrimento da teoria, o que aproxima a análise do comportamento de um dos critérios para se definir uma ciência natural, qual seja: adotar uma postura elegante, plausível e voltada à discussão parcimoniosa dos dados.…”

“…Em acordo, conforme já mencionado, Shimp (2013) propõe uma terceira categoria de análise denominada de unificada. Essa proposição não é nova.…”