Roy A. Moxley

From mechanistic to functional behaviorism.

A shift from mechanistic behaviorism to functional behaviorism is presented against the background of two historical traditions, one with an emphasis on form, the other with an emphasis on function. Skinners work, which made more contributions to a functional behaviorism than to a mechanistic behaviorism, exemplifies this shift. The two traditions and an account of Skinners development of functional relations are presented in order to show Skinners contributions to aligning modern behavior analysis with the functional tradition.

Some Historical Relationships between Science and Technology with Implications for Behavior Analysis

The relationship between science and technology is examined in terms of some implications for behavior analysis. Problems result when this relationship is seen as one in which science generally begets technology in a one-way, or hierarchical, relationship. These problems are not found when the relationship between science and technology is seen as two-way, or symmetrical, within a larger context of relationships. Some historical examples are presented. Collectively, these and other examples in the references weaken the case for a prevailing one-way, hierarchical relationship and strengthen the case for a two-way, symmetrical relationship. In addition to being more accurate historically, the symmetrical relationship is also more consistent with the principles of behavior analysis.

Sources for Skinner's pragmatic selectionism in 1945.

Skinner’s pragmatic selectionism shows up strongly in his 1945 publication, “The Operational Analysis of Psychological Terms,” in which he introduced a probabilistic three-term contingency for verbal behavior. This probabilism was accompanied by an expanded contextualism and an increased emphasis on consequences with a clear alignment to pragmatism. In total, these changes represent Skinner’s most striking shift from mechanistic and necessitarian values to pragmatic selectionism, and these changes may be indebted more to the conceptual contributions of others than Skinner acknowledged. Before 1945, Skinner made at least some positive associations with the views of Watson, Russell, and Carnap. From 1945 and afterwards, he strongly disassociated his views on verbal behavior from theirs. Before 1945, Skinner did not associate his views with those of Darwin or Peirce. After 1945, he strongly associated his views with those of Darwin and Peirce (in one published interview). No sources for his pragmatic selectionism, however, were referred to in 1945.

Some more similarities between Peirce and Skinner

C. S. Peirce is noted for pioneering a variety of views, and the case is made here for the similarities and parallels between his views and B. F. Skinner’s radical behaviorism. In addition to parallels previously noted, these similarities include an advancement of experimental science, a behavioral psychology, a shift from nominalism to realism, an opposition to positivism, a selectionist account for strengthening behavior, the importance of a community of selves, a recursive approach to method, and the probabilistic nature of truth. Questions are raised as to the extent to which Skinner’s radical behaviorism, as distinguished from his S-R positivism, may be seen as an extension of Peirce’s pragmatism.

Why Skinner is difficult.

Skinner’s views are commonly misrepresented. One reason for this difficulty is that changes in the way that Skinner formulated his views occurred in a gradual evolution over time throughout Skinner’s career, and the changes and their significance were not as conspicuously marked as they might have been. Among these changes were a movement from a two-term necessity to a three-term contingency; a movement from discriminative stimulus to setting as the first term in his three-term contingency; and a movement from determinism to random variation as a foundational principle in his selectionist behaviorism. When not seen in their historical development over time, a sample reading of Skinner’s views may readily result in misleading or inaccurate interpretations, particularly in respect to his later work. Seen in historical context, however, the accounts that survived after the changes Skinner made are well integrated in a selectionist theory of behavior.

Ernst Mach and B. F. Skinner: Their Similarities with Two Traditions for Verbal Behavior.

Ernst Mach is most closely associated with a positivism that demanded a language of close contact with reality. Mach linked this view with the tradition of the quest for an ideal language in which meaning is a property of a word. Logical positivism and the S-R psychology of the early B. F. Skinner also participated in this ideal-language positivism. In addition, Mach showed an affinity with another tradition—a pragmatic-selectionist tradition—although that tradition and Mach’s similarities with it were not as well developed. Mach showed no difficulty in jointly maintaining both of these traditions although they have been regarded as deeply incompatible. When the later Skinner adopted a pragmatic selectionism for his later views on verbal behavior, he rejected his earlier views that were aligned with S-R psychology as well as with logical positivism and its sympathizers. Nevertheless, some statements consistent with ‘‘meaning is a property of a word’’ remained for some time in Skinner’s writing.

Three Conceptual Units for Behavior

Three generic units for behavior are examined in terms of their background: an if-then unit for stimulus and response (S-R), a holistic unit for Kantor’s behavior segment, and an AB-because-of-C unit for Skinner’s three-term contingency. The units are distinguished in terms of their respective historical backgrounds, causal modes, advantages, and disadvantages. The ways in which these units may be compatible are discussed.

Graphics for Three-Term Contingencies

A source of confusion in the general readership regarding the relationship of operant to S-R psychology is traced to the use of graphics in the behavioral literature. A case is made for supplementing traditional linear notation systems with triangular graphics to illustrate three-term contingencies. Constructing discriminative stimuli in this fashion makes the distinction between operant and S-R formulations more conspicuous and reveals more comprehensive relationships for an extended radical behaviorism.

Ultimate realities: deterministic and evolutionary.

References to ultimate reality commonly turn up in the behavioral literature as references to determinism. However, this determinism is often difficult to interpret. There are different kinds of determinisms as well as different kinds of ultimate realities for a behaviorist to consider. To clarify some of the issues involved, the views of ultimate realities are treated as falling along a continuum, with extreme views of complete indeterminism and complete determinism at either end and various mixes in between. Doing so brings into play evolutionary realities and the movement from indeterminism to determinism, as in Peirce’s evolutionary cosmology. In addition, this framework helps to show how the views of determinism by B. F. Skinner and other behaviorists have shifted over time.

August Dvorak (1894-1975): Early expressions of applied behavior analysis and precision teaching

August Dvorak is best known for his development of the Dvorak keyboard. However, Dvorak also adapted and applied many behavioral and scientific management techniques to the field of education. Taken collectively, these techniques are representative of many of the procedures currently used in applied behavior analysis, in general, and especially in precision teaching. The failure to consider Dvorak’s instructional methods may explain some of the discrepant findings in studies which compare the efficiency of the Dvorak to the standard keyboard. This article presents a brief background on the development of the standard (QWERTY) and Dvorak keyboards, describes parallels between Dvorak’s teaching procedures and those used in precision teaching, reviews some of the comparative research on the Dvorak keyboard, and suggests some implications for further research in applying the principles of behavior analysis.