The Selective Impact of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior on Empirical Research: A Reply to Schlinger (2008)

Model Dependent Realism and the Rule-Governed Behavior of Behavior Analysts: Applications to Derived Relational Responding

A fundamental assumption within radical behaviorism is that all human behavior, including the rule-governed behavior of scientists, can be understood within a functional account. I propose that models of human behavior can be best described as a set of rules that are selected by behavior analysts to solve applied challenges, rather than descriptions of nature as it "truly exists." Model dependent realism (MDR) developed within the field of physics may provide useful criteria that could allow behavior analysts to more accurately track the relative probability of success of a given model within applied contexts. As a case example, I examine dispersive models of derived relational responding in terms of the criteria outlined within MDR, and I describe a preliminary level-scaling account of derived relational responding that encompasses several models in pursuit of a unified account. The account is context dependent and adopts a pragmatic truth criterion, consistent with assumptions within functional contextualism and radical behaviorism as an overarching rule governing the behavior of our applied subfield.

Resolving Barriers to an Applied Science of the Human Condition: Rule Governance and the Verbal Behavior of Applied Scientists

Rules / verbal behavior governing applied behavior scientists since Skinner have achieved great success resolving challenges experienced by individuals with severe developmental and intellectual disabilities. We extend prior work by Dixon, Belisle, Rehfeldt, and Root (2018, "Why We Are Still Not Acting to Save the World: The Upward Challenge of a Post-Skinnerian Behavior Science," Perspectives on Behavior Science, 41, 241-267) by suggesting that many of these rules, applied inflexibly, are unlikely to resolve significant problems experienced by humans without these same intellectual challenges (i.e., most humans). Particularly, methodological models of human behavior that ignore both private events and advances in relational frame theory and that favor a bottom-up inductive theorizing have not, and we argue cannot, address uniquely human challenges. Instead, we propose alternative rules developed in part within contextual behavior science that are more consistent with Skinner's radical behaviorism than are current approaches and that may expand the scope of applied behavior science. Only by adapting our own public and private verbal behavior as applied scientists can we move toward solving the wide range of challenges within the human condition.

Reflections on Verbal Behavior at 60

In the present essay, commemorating the 60th anniversary of the publication of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior, I stand by and defend the judgment I expressed in my article "The Long Goodbye: Why B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior Is Alive and Well on the 50th Anniversary of Its Publication" (2008c)-that Skinner's "interpretation of the behavior of the speaker, given the contingencies of reinforcement maintained by the community" (Skinner, 1987, p. 11), is not only adequate but is also consistent with the principles of operant learning. To that I add some of my reflections on the book after having taught it for years and having written numerous articles extending Skinner's analysis to related topics.

The impact of Verbal Behavior on the scholarly literature from 2005 to 2016

B. F. Skinner's (1957) Verbal Behavior had a limited influence on empirical research in the first few decades following its publication, but an increase in empirical activity has been evident in recent years. The purpose of this article is to update previous analyses that have quantified the influence of Verbal Behavior on the scholarly literature, with an emphasis on its impact on empirical research. Study 1 was a citation analysis that showed an increase in citations to Verbal Behavior from 2005 to 2016 relative to earlier time periods. In particular, there was a large increase in citations from empirical articles. Study 2 identified empirical studies in which a verbal operant was manipulated or measured, regardless of whether or not Verbal Behavior was cited, and demonstrated a large increase in publication rate, with an increasing trend in the publication of both basic and applied experimental analyses throughout the review period. A majority of the studies were concerned with teaching verbal behavior to children with autism spectrum disorder and other developmental disabilities, but a variety of other basic and applied research topics were also represented. The results suggest a clearly increasing impact of Verbal Behavior on the experimental analysis of behavior on the 60th anniversary of the book's publication.

Constructs and events in verbal behavior

Skinner's (1957) analysis of verbal behavior has been the subject of much controversy in recent years. While criticism has historically come from outside the field of behavior analysis, there are now well-articulated arguments against Skinner's analysis of verbal behavior from within the field as well. Recently, advocates of Skinner's analysis have attempted to respond to the critiques, particularly to those regarding Skinner's definition of verbal behavior articulated by proponents of relational frame theory. Specifically, it has been suggested that talk about definitions equates to making the essentialist error. This paper provides an overview of these issues in the context of understanding the role of constructs in science more generally. It will be argued that definitions are central to scientific progress, and are not only relevant to a functional analysis, but a central prerequisite to the pursuit of such an analysis.