A Critical Appraisal of Contemporary Approaches in the Quantitative Analysis of Behavior

Still Lost in Translation

Interdisciplinary dialogue can help progress and improve professional fields. Progress and improvement may be impeded by barriers within an interdisciplinary dialogue, two of which are false dichotomies and faulty generalizations. It is our opinion that this particular interdisciplinary dialogue will advance productively by avoiding: false dichotomies about the medical model and Disability Studies in Education (DSE) framework; false dichotomies about using a normality approach to establish goals; and faulty generalizations about practitioners within and outside the field in which we are trained. Most helping professionals care passionately about improving the quality of lives of the people with whom they work. Centering interdisciplinary conversations on this shared value can help avoid false dichotomies and faulty generalizations.

Pragmatism, mathematical models, and the scientific ideal of prediction and control

Mathematical models are often held to be valuable, if not necessary, for theories and explanations in the quantitative analysis of behavior. The present review suggests that mathematical models primarily derived from the observation of functional relations do indeed contribute to the scientific value of theories and explanations, even though the final form of the models appears to be highly abstract. However, mathematical models not primarily so derived risk being essentialist in character, based on a particular view of formal causation. Such models invite less effective and frequently mentalistic theories and explanations of behavior. Models may be evaluated in terms of both (a) the verbal processes responsible for their origin and development and (b) the prediction and control engendered by the theories and explanations that incorporate the models, however indirect or abstract that prediction and control may be. Overall, the present review suggests that technological application and theoretical contemplation may be usefully viewed as continuous and overlapping forms of scientific activity, rather than dichotomous and mutually exclusive.

Behaviorism and the stages of scientific activity

Following from an earlier analysis by B. F. Skinner, the present article suggests that the verbal processes in science may usefully be viewed as following a three-stage progression. This progression starts with (a) identification of basic data, then moves to (b) description of relations among those data, and ultimately concludes with (c) the deployment of higher order concepts in statements about organizations of data. The article emphasizes the importance of viewing theory and explanation as examples of verbal processes at the later stages, guided by the stimulus control from the earlier stages. The article further suggests that many theories and explanations in traditional psychology often take a form that appears to be from the later stages. However, adequate activity at the earlier stages has not preceded those theories and explanations. They therefore do not have the benefit of suitable stimulus control from the earlier stages. Rather, they reflect some degree of stimulus control by many mentalistic assumptions about causal entities and relations. Ultimately, traditional theories and explanations influenced by mentalistic assumptions occasion less effective interaction with natural events (e.g., through prediction and control) than they might otherwise.