Behaviorism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Not to be confused with Behavioralism.
"Behavior analysis" redirects here. For other uses, see Behavior analysis (disambiguation).

Behaviorism (or behaviourism) is a systematic approach to understanding the behavior of humans and other animals. It assumes that all behaviors are either reflexes produced by a response to certain stimuli in the environment, or a consequence of that individual's history, including especially reinforcement and punishment, together with the individual's current motivational state and controlling stimuli. Although behaviorists generally accept the important role of inheritance in determining behavior, they focus primarily on environmental factors.

Behaviorism combines elements of philosophy, methodology, and psychological theory. It emerged in the late nineteenth century as a reaction to depth psychology and other traditional forms of psychology, which often had difficulty making predictions that could be tested experimentally. The earliest derivatives of Behaviorism can be traced back to the late 19th century where Edward Thorndike pioneered the law of effect, a process that involved strengthening behavior through the use of reinforcement.

During the first half of the twentieth century, John B. Watson devised methodological behaviorism, which rejected introspective methods and sought to understand behavior by only measuring observable behaviors and events. It was not until the 1930s that B. F. Skinner suggested that private events—including thoughts and feelings—should be subjected to the same controlling variables as observable behavior, which became the basis for his philosophy called "radical behaviorism."[1][2] While Watson and Ivan Pavlov investigated the stimulus-response procedures of classical conditioning, Skinner assessed the controlling nature of consequences and also its potential effect on the antecedents (or discriminative stimuli) that strengthens behavior; the technique became known as operant conditioning.

Skinner's radical behaviorism has been highly successful experimentally, revealing new phenomena with new methods, but Skinner’s dismissal of theory limited its development. Theoretical behaviorism[3] recognized that a historical system, an organism, has a state as well as sensitivity to stimuli and the ability to emit responses. Indeed, Skinner himself acknowledged the possibility of what he called “latent” responses in humans, even though he neglected to extend this idea to rats and pigeons[4]. Latent responses constitute a repertoire, from which operant reinforcement can select.

The application of radical behaviorism—known as applied behavior analysis—is used in a variety of settings, including, for example, organizational behavior management, to the treatment of mental disorders, such as autism and substance abuse.[5][6][7] In addition, while behaviorism and cognitive schools of psychological thought may not agree theoretically, they have complemented each other in cognitive-behavior therapies, which have demonstrated utility in treating certain pathologies, including simple phobias, PTSD, and mood disorders.

Varieties[edit]

There is no universally agreed-upon classification, but some titles given to the various branches of behaviorism include:

  • Methodological behaviorism: Watson's behaviorism states that only public events (behaviors of an individual) can be objectively observed, and that therefore private events (thoughts and feelings) should be ignored.[1][8][9] It also became the basis for the early approach behavior modification in the 1970s and early 1980s.
  • Radical behaviorism: B. F. Skinner's behaviorism theorizes that processes within the organism should be acknowledged, particularly the presence of private events (such as thoughts and feelings), and suggests that environmental variables also control these internal events just as they control observable behaviors. Radical behaviorism forms the core philosophy behind behavior analysis. Willard Van Orman Quine used many of radical behaviorism's ideas in his study of knowledge and language.[8]
  • Teleological behaviorism: Post-Skinnerian, purposive, close to microeconomics. Focuses on objective observation as opposed to cognitive processes.
  • Psychological behaviorism: As proposed by Arthur W. Staats, unlike the previous behaviorisms of Skinner, Hull, and Tolman, was based upon a program of human research involving various types of human behavior. Psychological behaviorism introduces new principles of human learning. Humans learn not only by the animal learning principles but also by special human learning principles. Those principles involve human's uniquely huge learning ability. Humans learn repertoires that enable them to learn other things. Human learning is thus cumulative. No other animal demonstrates that ability, making the human species unique.
  • Interbehaviorism: Founded by Jacob Robert Kantor before Skinner's writings.

Two subtypes are:

  • Hullian and post-Hullian: theoretical, group data, not dynamic, physiological
  • Purposive: Tolman's behavioristic anticipation of cognitive psychology

Radical behaviorism[edit]

Main article: Radical behaviorism

B. F. Skinner proposed radical behaviorism as the conceptual underpinning of the experimental analysis of behavior. This view differs from other approaches to behavioral research in various ways but, most notably here, it contrasts with methodological behaviorism in accepting feelings, states of mind and introspection as behaviors subject to scientific investigation. Like methodological behaviorism it rejects the reflex as a model of all behavior, and it defends the science of behavior as complementary to but independent of physiology. Radical behaviorism overlaps considerably with other western philosophical positions such as American pragmatism.[10]

Experimental and conceptual innovations[edit]

This essentially philosophical position gained strength from the success of Skinner's early experimental work with rats and pigeons, summarized in his books The Behavior of Organisms[11] and Schedules of Reinforcement.[12] Of particular importance was his concept of the operant response, of which the canonical example was the rat's lever-press. In contrast with the idea of a physiological or reflex response, an operant is a class of structurally distinct but functionally equivalent responses. For example, while a rat might press a lever with its left paw or its right paw or its tail, all of these responses operate on the world in the same way and have a common consequence. Operants are often thought of as species of responses, where the individuals differ but the class coheres in its function-shared consequences with operants and reproductive success with species. This is a clear distinction between Skinner's theory and S–R theory.

Skinner's empirical work expanded on earlier research on trial-and-error learning by researchers such as Thorndike and Guthrie with both conceptual reformulations—Thorndike's notion of a stimulus–response "association" or "connection" was abandoned; and methodological ones—the use of the "free operant", so called because the animal was now permitted to respond at its own rate rather than in a series of trials determined by the experimenter procedures. With this method, Skinner carried out substantial experimental work on the effects of different schedules and rates of reinforcement on the rates of operant responses made by rats and pigeons. He achieved remarkable success in training animals to perform unexpected responses, to emit large numbers of responses, and to demonstrate many empirical regularities at the purely behavioral level. This lent some credibility to his conceptual analysis. It is largely his conceptual analysis that made his work much more rigorous than his peers', a point which can be seen clearly in his seminal work Are Theories of Learning Necessary? in which he criticizes what he viewed to be theoretical weaknesses then common in the study of psychology. An important descendant of the experimental analysis of behavior is the Society for Quantitative Analysis of Behavior.[13][14]

Relation to language[edit]

As Skinner turned from experimental work to concentrate on the philosophical underpinnings of a science of behavior, his attention turned to human language with his 1957 book Verbal Behavior[15] and other language-related publications;[16] Verbal Behavior laid out a vocabulary and theory for functional analysis of verbal behavior, and was strongly criticized in a review by Noam Chomsky.[17][18]

Skinner did not respond in detail but claimed that Chomsky failed to understand his ideas,[19] and the disagreements between the two and the theories involved have been further discussed.[20][21] Innateness theory is opposed to behaviorist theory which claims that language is a set of habits that can be acquired by means of conditioning.[22][23] According to some, the behaviorist account is a process which would be too slow to explain a phenomenon as complicated as language learning. What was important for a behaviorist's analysis of human behavior was not language acquisition so much as the interaction between language and overt behavior. In an essay republished in his 1969 book Contingencies of Reinforcement,[24] Skinner took the view that humans could construct linguistic stimuli that would then acquire control over their behavior in the same way that external stimuli could. The possibility of such "instructional control" over behavior meant that contingencies of reinforcement would not always produce the same effects on human behavior as they reliably do in other animals. The focus of a radical behaviorist analysis of human behavior therefore shifted to an attempt to understand the interaction between instructional control and contingency control, and also to understand the behavioral processes that determine what instructions are constructed and what control they acquire over behavior. Recently, a new line of behavioral research on language was started under the name of relational frame theory.

Education[edit]

See also: Philosophy of education § Realism

Behaviourism focuses on one particular view of learning: a change in external behaviour achieved through using reinforcement and repetition (Rote learning) to shape behavior of learners. Skinner found that behaviors could be shaped when the use of reinforcement was implemented. Desired behavior is rewarded, while the undesired behavior is not rewarded.[25] Incorporating behaviorism into the classroom allowed educators to assist their students in excelling both academically and personally. In the field of language learning, this type of teaching was called the audio-lingual method, characterised by the whole class using choral chanting of key phrases, dialogues and immediate correction.

Within the behaviourist view of learning, the "teacher" is the dominant person in the classroom and takes complete control, evaluation of learning comes from the teacher who decides what is right or wrong. The learner does not have any opportunity for evaluation or reflection within the learning process, they are simply told what is right or wrong. The conceptualization of learning using this approach could be considered "superficial" as the focus is on external changes in behaviour i.e. not interested in the internal processes of learning leading to behaviour change and has no place for the emotions involved the process.

Operant conditioning[edit]

Main article: Operant conditioning

Operant conditioning was developed by B.F. Skinner in 1937 and deals with the modification of "voluntary behaviour" or operant behaviour. Operant behavior operates on the environment and is maintained by its consequences. Reinforcement and punishment, the core tools of operant conditioning, are either positive (delivered following a response), or negative (withdrawn following a response).[26] Skinner created the Skinner Box or operant conditioning chamber to test the effects of operant conditioning principles on rats. From this study, he discovered that the rats learned very effectively if they were rewarded frequently. Skinner also found that he could shape the rats' behavior through the use of rewards, which could, in turn, be applied to human learning as well.

Classical conditioning[edit]

Main article: Classical conditioning

Although operant conditioning plays the largest role in discussions of behavioral mechanisms, classical conditioning (or Pavlovian conditioning or respondent conditioning) is also an important behavior-analytic process that need not refer to mental or other internal processes. Pavlov's experiments with dogs provide the most familiar example of the classical conditioning procedure. In simple conditioning, the dog was presented with a stimulus such as a light or a sound, and then food was placed in the dog's mouth. After a few repetitions of this sequence, the light or sound by itself caused the dog to salivate.[27] Although Pavlov proposed some tentative physiological processes that might be involved in classical conditioning, these have not been confirmed.[citation needed] The idea of classical conditioning helped behaviorist John Watson discover the key mechanism behind how humans acquire the behaviors that they do, which was to find a natural reflex that produces the response being considered.

Watson's "Behaviourist Manifesto" has three aspects that deserve special recognition: one is that psychology should be purely objective, with any interpretation of conscious experience being removed, thus leading to psychology as the "science of behaviour"; the second one is that the goals of psychology should be to predict and control behaviour (as opposed to describe and explain conscious mental states; the third one is that there is no notable distinction between human and non-human behaviour. Following Darwin's theory of evolution, this would simply mean that human behaviour is just a more complex version in respect to behaviour displayed by other species.[28]

In philosophy[edit]

Main article: Logical behaviorism

Behaviorism is a psychological movement that can be contrasted with philosophy of mind. The basic premise of radical behaviorism is that the study of behavior should be a natural science, such as chemistry or physics, without any reference to hypothetical inner states of organisms as causes for their behavior. Less radical varieties are unconcerned with philosophical positions on internal, mental and subjective experience. Behaviorism takes a functional view of behavior. According to Edmund Fantino and colleagues: "Behavior analysis has much to offer the study of phenomena normally dominated by cognitive and social psychologists. We hope that successful application of behavioral theory and methodology will not only shed light on central problems in judgment and choice but will also generate greater appreciation of the behavioral approach."[29]

Behaviorist sentiments are not uncommon within philosophy of language and analytic philosophy. It is sometimes argued that Ludwig Wittgenstein defended a logical behaviorist position[9] (e.g., the beetle in a box argument). In logical positivism (as held, e.g., by Rudolf Carnap[9] and Carl Hempel),[9] the meaning of psychological statements are their verification conditions, which consist of performed overt behavior. W. V. O. Quine made use of a type of behaviorism,[9] influenced by some of Skinner's ideas, in his own work on language. Quine's work in semantics differed substantially from the empiricist semantics of Carnap which he attempted to create an alternative to, couching his semantic theory in references to physical objects rather than sensations. Gilbert Ryle defended a distinct strain of philosophical behaviorism, sketched in his book The Concept of Mind.[9] Ryle's central claim was that instances of dualism frequently represented "category mistakes", and hence that they were really misunderstandings of the use of ordinary language. Daniel Dennett likewise acknowledges himself to be a type of behaviorist,[30] though he offers extensive criticism of radical behaviorism and refutes Skinner's rejection of the value of intentional idioms and the possibility of free will.[31]

This is Dennett's main point in "Skinner Skinned." Dennett argues that there is a crucial difference between explaining and explaining away… If our explanation of apparently rational behavior turns out to be extremely simple, we may want to say that the behavior was not really rational after all. But if the explanation is very complex and intricate, we may want to say not that the behavior is not rational, but that we now have a better understanding of what rationality consists in. (Compare: if we find out how a computer program solves problems in linear algebra, we don't say it's not really solving them, we just say we know how it does it. On the other hand, in cases like Weizenbaum's ELIZA program, the explanation of how the computer carries on a conversation is so simple that the right thing to say seems to be that the machine isn't really carrying on a conversation, it's just a trick.)

— Curtis Brown, Philosophy of Mind, "Behaviorism: Skinner and Dennett"[32]

Molecular versus molar behaviorism[edit]

Skinner's view of behavior is most often characterized as a "molecular" view of behavior; that is, behavior can be decomposed into atomistic parts or molecules. This view is inconsistent with Skinner's complete description of behavior as delineated in other works, including his 1981 article "Selection by Consequences".[33] Skinner proposed that a complete account of behavior requires understanding of selection history at three levels: biology (the natural selection or phylogeny of the animal); behavior (the reinforcement history or ontogeny of the behavioral repertoire of the animal); and for some species, culture (the cultural practices of the social group to which the animal belongs). This whole organism then interacts with its environment. Molecular behaviorists use notions from melioration theory, negative power function discounting or additive versions of negative power function discounting.[34]

Molar behaviorists, such as Howard Rachlin, Richard Herrnstein, and William Baum, argue that behavior cannot be understood by focusing on events in the moment. That is, they argue that behavior is best understood as the ultimate product of an organism's history and that molecular behaviorists are committing a fallacy by inventing fictitious proximal causes for behavior. Molar behaviorists argue that standard molecular constructs, such as "associative strength", are better replaced by molar variables such as rate of reinforcement.[35] Thus, a molar behaviorist would describe "loving someone" as a pattern of loving behavior over time; there is no isolated, proximal cause of loving behavior, only a history of behaviors (of which the current behavior might be an example) that can be summarized as "love".

21st-century behavior analysis[edit]

The early term behavior modification has been obsolete since the 1990s as it currently refers to the brief revival of methodological behaviorism in the 1970s and early 1980s.[36][37][38] Applied behavior analysis—the term that replaced behavior modification—has emerged into a thriving field.

The independent development of behaviour analysis outside the US also continues to develop, In terms of motivation, there remains strong interest in the variety of human motivational behaviour factors, e.g.,[39][40][41][42][43]. Some, may go as far as suggesting that the current rapid change in organisational behaviour could partly be attributed to some of these theories and the theories that are related to it.[44]

The interests among behavior analysts today are wide-ranging, as a review of the 30 Special Interest Groups (SIGs) within ABAI indicates. Such interests include everything from developmental disabilities and autism, to cultural psychology, clinical psychology, verbal behavior, Organizational Behavior Management (OBM; behavior analytic I–O psychology). OBM has developed a particularly strong following within behavior analysis, as evidenced by the formation of the OBM Network and the influential Journal of Organizational Behavior Management (JOBM; recently rated the 3rd highest impact journal in applied psychology by ISI JOBM rating).

Applications of behavioral technology, also known as applied behavior analysis or ABA, have been particularly well established in the area of developmental disabilities since the 1960s. Treatment of individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders has grown especially rapidly since the mid-1990s. This demand for services encouraged the formation of a professional credentialing program administered by the Behavior Analyst Certification Board, Inc. (BACB) and accredited by the National Commission for Certifying Agencies. As of early 2012, there are over 300 BACB approved course sequences offered by about 200 colleges and universities worldwide preparing students for this credential and approximately 11,000 BACB certificants, most working in the United States. The Association of Professional Behavior Analysts was formed in 2008 to meet the needs of these ABA professionals.

Modern behavior analysis has also witnessed a massive resurgence in research and applications related to language and cognition, with the development of relational frame theory (RFT; described as a "Post-Skinnerian account of language and cognition").[45] RFT also forms the empirical basis for the highly successful and data-driven acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). In fact, researchers and practitioners in RFT/ACT have become sufficiently prominent that they have formed their own specialized organization that is highly behaviorally oriented, known as the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science (ACBS).

Some of the current prominent behavior analytic journals include the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA), the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (JEAB) JEAB website, the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management (JOBM), Behavior and Social Issues (BSI), as well as the Psychological Record. Currently, the US has 14 ABAI accredited MA and PhD programs for comprehensive study in behavior analysis.

Behavior analysis and culture[edit]

Cultural analysis has always been at the philosophical core of radical behaviorism from the early days (as seen in Skinner's Walden Two, Science & Human Behavior, Beyond Freedom & Dignity, and About Behaviorism).

During the 1980s, behavior analysts, most notably Sigrid Glenn, had a productive interchange with cultural anthropologist Marvin Harris (the most notable proponent of "cultural materialism") regarding interdisciplinary work. Very recently, behavior analysts have produced a set of basic exploratory experiments in an effort toward this end.[46] Behaviorism is also frequently used in game development, although this application is controversial.[47]

Behavior informatics and behavior computing[edit]

With the fast growth of big behavioral data and applications, behavior analysis is ubiquitous. Understanding behavior from the informatics and computing perspective becomes increasingly critical for in-depth understanding of what, why and how behaviors are formed, interact, evolve, change and affect business and decision. Behavior informatics[48][49] and behavior computing[50][51] deeply explore behavior intelligence and behavior insights from the informatics and computing perspectives.

Criticisms and limitations[edit]

See also: Cognitive psychology and Cognitive neuroscience

In the second half of the 20th century, behaviorism was largely eclipsed as a result of the cognitive revolution.[52][53] This shift was due to methodological behaviorism being highly criticized for not examining mental processes, and this led to the development of the cognitive therapy movement. In the mid-20th century, three main influences arose that would inspire and shape cognitive psychology as a formal school of thought:

  • Noam Chomsky's 1959 critique of behaviorism, and empiricism more generally, initiated what would come to be known as the "cognitive revolution".[54]
  • Developments in computer science would lead to parallels being drawn between human thought and the computational functionality of computers, opening entirely new areas of psychological thought. Allen Newell and Herbert Simon spent years developing the concept of artificial intelligence (AI) and later worked with cognitive psychologists regarding the implications of AI. The effective result was more of a framework conceptualization of mental functions with their counterparts in computers (memory, storage, retrieval, etc.)
  • Formal recognition of the field involved the establishment of research institutions such as George Mandler's Center for Human Information Processing in 1964. Mandler described the origins of cognitive psychology in a 2002 article in the Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences[55]

In the early years of cognitive psychology, behaviorist critics held that the empiricism it pursued was incompatible with the concept of internal mental states. Cognitive neuroscience, however, continues to gather evidence of direct correlations between physiological brain activity and putative mental states, endorsing the basis for cognitive psychology.

List of notable behaviorists[edit]

See also[edit]

Related therapies[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b Chiesa, Mecca (1994). Radical Behaviorism: The Philosophy and the Science. Authors Cooperative, Inc. pp. 1–241. ISBN 0962331147. Archived from the original on 2017-09-04. Retrieved July 31, 2016.
  2. ^ Dillenburger, Karola & Keenan, Mickey (2009). "None of the As in ABA stand for autism: Dispelling the myths". Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability. 34 (2): 193–195. doi:10.1080/13668250902845244. PMID 19404840. Retrieved 2014-12-24.
  3. ^ Staddon, John (2014) The New Behaviorism (2nd edition) Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
  4. ^ Staddon, J. Theoretical behaviorism. Philosophy and Behavior. (45) in press.
  5. ^ Baer, Donald M.; Wolf, Montrose M.; Risley, Todd R. (1968). "Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis". Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1 (1): 91–7. doi:10.1901/jaba.1968.1-91. PMC 1310980. PMID 16795165.
  6. ^ Madden, Gregory J., ed. (2013). "APA Handbook of Behavior Analysis". Retrieved December 24, 2014.
  7. ^ Crone-Todd, Darlene, ed. (2015). "Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice". Retrieved 2014-12-24.
  8. ^ a b Skinner, BF (1976). About Behaviorism. New York: Random House, Inc. p. 18. ISBN 0-394-71618-3.
  9. ^ a b c d e f Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). "Behaviorism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  10. ^ Moxley, R.A. (2004). "Pragmatic selectionism: The philosophy of behavior analysis" (PDF). The Behavior Analyst Today. 5 (1): 108–25. Retrieved 2008-01-10.
  11. ^ Skinner, B.F. (1991). The Behavior of Organisms. Copley Pub Group. p. 473. ISBN 0-87411-487-X.
  12. ^ Cheney, Carl D.; Ferster, Charles B. (1997). Schedules of Reinforcement (B.F. Skinner Reprint Series). Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group. p. 758. ISBN 0-87411-828-X.
  13. ^ Commons, M.L. (2001). "A short history of the Society for the Quantitative Analysis of Behavior" (PDF). Behavior Analyst Today. 2 (3): 275–9. Retrieved 2008-01-10.
  14. ^ Thornbury, Scott (1998). "The Lexical Approach: A journey without maps". Modern English Teacher. 7 (4): 7–13.
  15. ^ Skinner, Burrhus Frederick (1957). Verbal Behavior. Acton, Massachusetts: Copley Publishing Group. ISBN 1-58390-021-7.
  16. ^ Skinner, B.F. (1969). "An operant analysis of problem-solving": 133–57.; chapter in Skinner, B.F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: a theoretical analysis. Appleton-Century-Crofts. p. 283. ISBN 0-13-171728-6.
  17. ^ Chomsky, Noam; Skinner, B.F. (1959). "A Review of B.F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior". Language. 35 (1): 26–58. doi:10.2307/411334. JSTOR 411334.
  18. ^ Kennison, Shelia M. (2013). Introduction to language development. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. ISBN 9781483315324.
  19. ^ Skinner, B.F. (1972). "I Have Been Misunderstood". Center Magazine (March–April): 63.
  20. ^ MacCorquodale, K. (1970). "On Chomsky's Review of Skinner's VERBAL BEHAVIOR". Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 13 (1): 83–99. doi:10.1901/jeab.1970.13-83. PMC 1333660. Archived from the original on 2009-01-06. Retrieved 2008-01-10.
  21. ^ Stemmer, N. (1990). "Skinner's verbal behavior, Chomsky's review, and mentalism". J Exp Anal Behav. 54 (3): 307–15. doi:10.1901/jeab.1990.54-307. PMC 1323000. PMID 2103585.
  22. ^ Thornbury, Scott (2006). An A-Z of ELT. Oxford: Macmillan. p. 24. ISBN 1405070633.
  23. ^ Douglas Brown, H (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (Fourth ed.). White Plains: Longman/Pearson Education. pp. 8–9. ISBN 0-13-017816-0.
  24. ^ Skinner, B.F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: a theoretical analysis. Appleton-Century-Crofts. p. 283. ISBN 0-13-171728-6.
  25. ^ "Behaviorism - Learning Theories". Learning Theories. 2007-01-31. Retrieved 2017-08-04.
  26. ^ "Classical and Operant Conditioning - Behaviorist Theories". Learning Theories. 2015-06-19. Retrieved 2017-08-04.
  27. ^ "Ivan Pavlov". Retrieved 16 April 2012.
  28. ^ Richard Gross, Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour
  29. ^ Fantino, E.; Stolarz-Fantino, S.; Navarro, A. (2003). "Logical fallacies: A behavioral approach to reasoning". The Behavior Analyst Today. 4. p.116 (pp.109–117). Retrieved 2008-01-10.
  30. ^ Dennett, D.C. "The Message is: There is no Medium". Tufts University. Archived from the original on 11 January 2008. Retrieved 2008-01-10.
  31. ^ Dennett, Daniel (1981). Brainstorms: Philosophical Essays on Mind and Psychology. Bradford Books. MIT Press. p. 53. ISBN 978-0-262-54037-7. LCCN 78013723.
  32. ^ Brown, Curtis (2001). "Behaviorism: Skinner and Dennett". Philosophy of Mind. San Antonio, TX: Trinity University.
  33. ^ Skinner, B.F (31 July 1981). "Selection by Consequences" (PDF). Science. 213 (4507): 501–4. Bibcode:1981Sci...213..501S. doi:10.1126/science.7244649. PMID 7244649. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 July 2010. Retrieved 14 August 2010.
  34. ^ Fantino, E. (2000). "Delay-reduction theory—the case for temporal context: comment on Grace and Savastano (2000)". J Exp Psychol Gen. 129 (4): 444–6. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.129.4.444. PMID 11142857.
  35. ^ Baum, W.M. (2003). "The molar view of behavior and its usefulness in behavior analysis". Behavior Analyst Today. 4: 78–81. doi:10.1037/h0100009. Archived from the original on 2009-09-04. Retrieved 2008-01-10.
  36. ^ Mace, F. Charles (1994). "The significance and future of functional analysis methodologies". Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 27 (2): 385–392. doi:10.1901/jaba.1994.27-385. PMC 1297814. PMID 16795830.
  37. ^ Pelios, L.; Morren, J.; Tesch, D.; Axelrod, S. (1999). "The impact of functional analysis methodology on treatment choice for self-injurious and aggressive behavior". Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 32 (2): 185–95. doi:10.1901/jaba.1999.32-185. PMC 1284177. PMID 10396771.
  38. ^ Mace, F. Charles; Critchfield, Thomas S. (May 2010). "Translational research in behavior analysis: Historic traditions and imperative for the future". Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 93 (3): 293–312. doi:10.1901/jeab.2010.93-293. PMC 2861871. PMID 21119847.
  39. ^ Kellaway, Lucy (7 January 2015). "My team gets more excited by loo roll than business budgets: Work problems answered". London: Financial Times. p. 10. Retrieved 22 November 2015.
  40. ^ Eyres, Harry (19 December 2009). "Peaks in a trough year: The Slow Lane". Financial Times. p. 22. Retrieved 22 November 2015.
  41. ^ Stern, Stefan (5 August 2008). "Keep up motivation levels through long summer days". London: Financial Times. p. 12. Archived from the original on 2015-11-22. Retrieved 22 November 2015.
  42. ^ Skapinker, Michael (11 December 2002). "Human capitalism: Does treating workers well help business too? A PwC report provides some evidence". London: Financial Times. p. 22.
  43. ^ Skapinker, Michael (9 April 2013). "The 50 ideas that shaped business today". London: Financial Times. Retrieved 22 November 2015.
  44. ^ "Reinventing the deal; American capitalism" (417.8961). London: The Economist. 24 October 2015. pp. 21–24.
  45. ^ Hayes, S.C.; Barnes-Holmes, D. & Roche, B. (2001) Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. Kluwer Academic: New York.
  46. ^ Ward, Todd A.; Eastman, Raymond; Ninness, Chris (2009). "An Experimental Analysis of Cultural Materialism: The Effects of Various Modes of Production on Resource Sharing". Behavior and Social Issues. 18: 1–23. doi:10.5210/bsi.v18i1.1950.
  47. ^ Jon Radoff (2011). "Gamification, Behaviorism and Bullsh$!". Radoff.com. Archived from the original on 2011-10-03. Retrieved 2011-08-11.
  48. ^ Cao, Longbing (2010). "In-depth Behavior Understanding and Use: the Behavior Informatics Approach". Information Science. 180 (17): 3067–3085. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2010.03.025.
  49. ^ Cao, Longbing; Joachims, Thorsten; et al. (2014). "Behavior Informatics: A New Perspective". IEEE Intelligent Systems. 29 (4): 62–80. doi:10.1109/mis.2014.60.
  50. ^ Cao, Longbing; Yu, Philip (eds) (2012). Behavior Computing: Modeling, Analysis, Mining and Decision. Springer. ISBN 978-1-4471-2969-1.CS1 maint: Extra text: authors list (link)
  51. ^ Cao, Longbing; Motoda, Hiroshi; et al. (2013). Behavior and Social Computing. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-04047-9.
  52. ^ Friesen, N. (2005). Mind and Machine: Ethical and Epistemological Implications for Research. Thompson Rivers University, B.C., Canada.
  53. ^ Waldrop, M.M. (2002). The Dream Machine: JCR Licklider and the revolution that made computing personal. New York: Penguin Books. (pp. 139–40).
  54. ^ Chomsky, N (1959). "Review of Skinner's Verbal Behavior". Language. 35: 26–58. doi:10.2307/411334. Chomsky N. Preface to the reprint of A Review of Skinner's Verbal Behavior. In: Jakobovits L.A, Miron M.S, editors. Readings in the psychology of language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1967.
  55. ^ Mandler, George (2002). "Origins of the cognitive (r)evolution". Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences. 38: 339–353. doi:10.1002/jhbs.10066. PMID 12404267.

Further reading[edit]

  • Baum, W.M. (2005) Understanding behaviorism: Behavior, Culture and Evolution. Blackwell.
  • Cao, L.B. (2013) IJCAI2013 tutorial on behavior informatics and computing.
  • Cao, L.B. (2014) Non-IIDness Learning in Behavioral and Social Data, The Computer Journal, 57(9): 1358–1370.
  • Chiesa, Mecca (1994). "Radical Behaviorism: The Philosophy and the Science". Authors Cooperative, Inc.
  • Cooper, John O., Heron, Timothy E., & Heward, William L. (2007). "Applied Behavior Analysis: Second Edition". Pearson.
  • Ferster, C.B. & Skinner, B.F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
  • Malott, Richard W. Principles of Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2008. Print.
  • Mills, John A., Control: A History of Behavioral Psychology, Paperback Edition, New York University Press 2000.
  • Lattal, K.A. & Chase, P.N. (2003) "Behavior Theory and Philosophy". Plenum.
  • Pierce, W. David & Cheney, Carl D. (2013). "Behavior Analysis and Learning: Fifth Edition". Psychology Press.
  • Plotnik, Rod. (2005) Introduction to Psychology. Thomson-Wadsworth (ISBN 0-534-63407-9).
  • Rachlin, H. (1991) Introduction to modern behaviorism. (3rd edition.) New York: Freeman.
  • Skinner, B.F. Beyond Freedom & Dignity, Hackett Publishing Co, Inc 2002.
  • Skinner, B.F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
  • Skinner, B.F. (1945). "The operational analysis of psychological terms". Psychological Review. 52 (270–7): 290–4. doi:10.1037/h0062535.
  • Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior (ISBN 0-02-929040-6) Online version.
  • Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Skinner, B.F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: a theoretical analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
  • Skinner, B.F. (31 July 1981). "Selection by Consequences" (PDF). Science. 213 (4507): 501–4. Bibcode:1981Sci...213..501S. doi:10.1126/science.7244649. PMID 7244649. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 July 2010. Retrieved 14 August 2010.
  • Klein, P. (2013) "Explanation of Behavioural Psychotherapy Styles". [1].
  • Staddon, J. (2014) The New Behaviorism, 2nd Edition. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. pp. xi, 1–282.
  • Watson, J.B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158–177. (on-line).
  • Watson, J.B. (1919). Psychology from the Standpoint of a Behaviorist.
  • Watson, J.B. (1924). Behaviorism.
  • Zuriff, G.E. (1985). Behaviorism: A Conceptual Reconstruction, Columbia University Press.
  • LeClaire, J. and Rushin, J.P. (2010) Behavioral Analytics For Dummies. Wiley. (ISBN 978-0-470-58727-0).

External links[edit]

Library resources about
Behaviorism
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Behaviorism&oldid=876364867"