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

Humble Behaviorism Redux

The need to bring behavior analysis to scale is no more obvious or urgent than now. Collaboration between behavior analysts and healthcare workers, educators, policymakers, mental health clinicians, social workers, and so many other professionals is critical to reaching under-resourced and traditionally marginalized populations. First, however, interprofessional collaboration must be adopted widely and reinforced within the behavior analytic community. Disciplinary centrism and hubris pose barriers to effective interprofessional collaboration, leading one to assume the position that practitioners of the same discipline are better trained and smarter than those of a different field. However, cultural humility (Wright, Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12(4), 805-809, 2019) is an alternative to disciplinary centrism that allows professionals to retain identities born of cultural histories and training (Pecukonis, Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 40(3), 211-220, 2020). Furthermore, cultural reciprocity is a process of self-observation and collaborative inquiry that involves questioning one's own assumptions and forces individuals (and professions) to confront the contradictions between their values and their practices (Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999). In this paper, we revisit the call for Humble Behaviorism first made by Alan Neuringer in 1991 and the recommendations of fellow behavior analysts since. Specifically, we introduce a framework of cultural reciprocity to guide humble behaviorists as they acquire behaviors necessary to establish and maintain productive interprofessional relationships. We encourage them to act on their ethical and moral duties to address social problems of global concern and bring behavior analysis to scale.

Selection by consequence: A response to Hayes and Fryling (2019)

The paper by Hayes and Fryling (2019) seeks to inform readers that the Kantorian system of Interbehaviorism has been misunderstood and misrepresented by contextual behavior scientists. Furthermore, these authors suggest that much is to be gained by embracing the system developed by Kantor, most importantly that being large scale system building efforts. We disagree with this position, and find the Kantorian system to be of questionable relevancy and at risk of potential extinction within the behavioral community. We also have concerns that perhaps the insights provided by Hayes and Fryling will fail in recruitment of additional members to the Interbehavioral cause. Although the overarching theme of Interbehaviorism is present within emerging dynamical approaches to behavior science, adopting the vernacular of Kantor may be unnecessary to continue his tradition. We recommend allowing empirical selection to run its course in determining the eventual fate of Kantor's Interbehaviorism.