On the Relation Between Radical Behaviorism and the Science of Verbal Behavior Sam Leigland Gonzaga University
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior 1989, 7, 25-41 On the Relation Between Radical Behaviorism and the Science of Verbal Behavior Sam Leigland Gonzaga University A fully-developed "science of verbal behavior" may depend upon a recognition of the implica- tions of Skinner's scientific system, radical behaviorism, particularly as it relates to the nature of scientific research. An examination of the system and Skinner's own research practices imply, for example, that samples of vocal or written verbal behavior collected under controlling condi- tions may be observed as directly for the effects of controlling contingencies as in the traditional practice involving cumulative response records. Such practices may be defended on the basis of the pragmatic epistemology which characterizes radical behaviorism. An example of one type of exploratory method is described. In a number of places in the writings of philosophy," and what have such issues to B. F. Skinner, reference is made to a "science do with the analysis of verbal behavior? of verbal behavior" (e.g., Skinner, 1957). The To take a radical behaviorist view, reference appears to have been made first in "philosophy" is not regarded as some ration- Skinner's (1945) landmark paper on opera- alistic exercise which somehow stands apart tionism. This paper also marks what appears from ongoing human behavior and its to be Skinner's first published reference to products, but rather is a term which "radical behaviorism;' the scientific system describes certain verbal practices within a which has been identified with Skinner's cultural context. Issues of "philosophy" are work. While the scientific field with which thus important to the development of be- Skinner is identified is called the experimen- havior analysis insofar as such issues iden- tal analysis of behavior (or, more generally, tify or define the assumptions, rules, or behavior analysis), the purpose of this paper contingencies with which a scientist may is to examine the role of radical behaviorism, productively approach and interact with the as a scientific system, to the development relevant subject matter of the field. It may be and methodology of a science of verbal said that "radical behaviorism" describes a behavior as a specialized field. set of contingencies which may lead to effec- tive contact with behavioral ("psychological") RADICAL BEHAVIORISM AND phenomena, rather than a set of specific con- THE ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR ceptual or methodological prescriptions (e.g., Day, 1983). A full appreciation of the It could be argued that of all of Skinner's implications of radical behaviorism (as Skin- contributions, the most important is the sys- ner has described it; e.g., 1945) depends in tem of science which allows for a consistent, turn upon an understanding of the implica- systematic, comprehensive, natural science tions of Skinner's functional analysis of ver- of behavior. This is the system which charac- bal behavior. As it is hoped to be shown later, terizes Skinner's work over the past 50 years, the two are interdependent in Skinner's and which may be described as the "philo- full sophy of science" known as radical work and may be a key to the develop- behaviorism. But why should behavior ment of a science of verbal behavior. of "mere A great deal of space could be devoted to analysts be concerned with issues a discussion of the varieties of positions which go by the name of "behaviorism" (cf. Dedicated to the remembering of Willard F. Day, Jr. will Reprint requests should be sent to Sam Leigland, Moore, 1987), so the major points be de- Department of Psychology, Gonzaga University, veloped here by way of summary. This sum- Spokane, Washington 99258-0001. mary is based on those writings in which 25 26 SAM LEIGLAND Skinner has discussed radical behaviorism the emphasis was upon the control of behav- (e.g., Skinner, 1945, 1964, 1974, 1989), and ior, where the controlling relations were treatments of those writings (e.g., Day, 1980, made visible through the use of cumulative 1983; Moore, 1987). First, radical behaviorism records. In the case of the other book, sam- is frequently contrasted with a position ples of behavior and controlling conditions called "methodological behaviorism," which were presented as examples of controlling might be viewed as a kind of scientific or- contingencies, and in this sense the empha- thodoxy in contemporary psychology (e.g., sis was upon the interpretation of behavior. Day, 1983; Moore, 1987). The latter position In both cases, observers made discriminative might be summarized by the following: (1) statements about controlling contingencies, the definition of the (empirically-based) sub- where the statements were under the control ject matter as publicly-observable behavior of records made directly from the on-going (related to historical ties with logical positi- behavior of individual organisms. vism); (2) the focus upon the study of be- While it is clear that Skinner's research havior as a means of investigating internal, may be described in terms of both radical be- causal mechanisms of a conceptual nature haviorism and the research practices of the which form the basis of scientific explana- experimental analysis of behavior, it is also tion; (3) a commitment to the practice of clear that we may make a further distinction operational definitions in the traditional between these as well (e.g., Day, 1983). That sense (to be found described in virtually ev- is, the hallmark of the experimental analysis ery introductory psychology text in current of behavior is a particularly effective set of use); and (4) a position which has been methodological traditions; namely, the ex- described in terms of reductionism and perimental analysis of a representative oper- mechanism (e.g., Hayes, Hayes, & Reese, ant response class with an individual 1988). (typically but not exclusively non-human) or- The position which has come to be called ganism in a controlled setting. Such metho- radical behaviorism is different enough by dological strategies, however, do not specify contrast that some have argued strongly that nor require any particular scientific system or the label "behaviorism" in the description is orientation. One can employ such methods, both inappropriate and damaging (e.g., Lee, for example, in the investigation of operant 1988). Skinner (1989) has recently described behavior as a means of testing the "validity" radical behaviorism as a position in which of any sort of cognitive theory or model. Fur- behavior is treated as a subject matter in its ther, the lack of commitment of the metho- own right, apart from internal explanations, dological orientation to any particular mental or physiological. To elaborate some- scientific system has been supported by at what, the position has been called anti- least one of the past editors of the Journal of mentalistic, anti-dualistic, and anti- the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (Zeiler, reductionistic (Holland, 1988), and one in 1977). which a pragmatic epistemology joins with the Machian principle of "staying at the lev- el of your observations" (e.g., Skinner, 1931, VERBAL BEHAVIOR: 1974). An appreciation of radical behaviorism METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES gives us a perspective with which to view the Certainly there is more than one way to do breadth of Skinner's work; to take two scientific psychology, and even more than representative examples published in 1957, one way to formulate the field of "operant his book (with C. B. Ferster) Schedules ofRein- conditioning:" The point to be made here, forcement, and his book Verbal Behavior. though, is that the sort of "science of verbal While these two books may be regarded as behavior" which has been proposed by Skin- different in kind when viewed from the ner depends upon the system identified as traditional (methodological behaviorist) per- radical behaviorism. For example, perhaps spectives of experimental/theoretical psy- the most pervasive and persistent of the mis- chology, they are perhaps best understood guided criticisms of Skinner's analysis of ver- together as two examples of radical behavior- bal behavior (e.g., Chomsky, 1959; Koch, ist epistemology and scientific method (e.g., 1964) have taken the formulation to be rooted Day, 1976). In the case of one of the books, in methodological behaviorism or classical RADICAL BEHAVIORISM AND VERBAL BEHAVIOR 27 "S-R" psychology. Such critics have response) and over conditions, preferably in rightfully documented the limitations of some mechanical/automatic fashion. But such an approach, but have wrongfully what are the "units" to be recorded in ver- attributed the approach to Skinner, whose bal behavior as they occur in time? Early radical behaviorism promises a truly differ- studies began with the very reasonable ent and effective approach to the verbal field strategy of examining the occurrence of sen- when compared to the traditional orthodoxy tence constituents, such as plural nouns. A of "experimental psychology." more contemporary strategy might involve In addition, the system identified with the counting of instances of the mand and Skinner's approach to science may point the tact relation (Skinner, 1957) in a given verbal direction to the development of empirical context. The question remains a difficult one, and analytic methods appropriate to the ver- however; that is, are we to count instances of bal field. To be sure, many appropriate, some sort of unit of verbal behavior in time, effective, and important methodological and if so, what sort of "unit" should it be advances are currently in use and continue (e.g., sentence parts, sentences, functionally- to appear. For example, recent efforts in the defined types of verbal operants, etc.)? We experimental analysis of human behavior will return to this issue in the sections below. have made frequent use of a sort of metaphor A second question concerns the issue of of Skinner's original rat/lever/box "prepara- the objectivity of the measurement, once the tion" in that human subjects will press a but- type of measurement has been specified.