Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Behavior Analyst logoLink to The Behavior Analyst
. 1982 Fall;5(2):109–125. doi: 10.1007/BF03392380

Comments on cognitive science in the experimental analysis of behavior

Edward K Morris, Stephen T Higgins, Warren K Bickel
PMCID: PMC2742049  PMID: 22478563

Abstract

Arguments are increasingly being made for the inclusion of cognitive science in the experimental analysis of behavior (TEAB). These arguments are described, and a critical analysis of them is presented, especially in regards to the logic of objective inference and the renewed use of cognitive intervening variables. In addition, one particular defining feature of cognitive processes (i.e., the absence of an immediate controlling stimulus) is described, along with alternative points of view stressing molar-molecular levels of analysis and historical causation. Finally, comments are made on the use of cognitive concepts and language in the behavioral sciences. On all of these issues, counter-arguments are based on available material in behavior analysis metatheory, concepts, and experimental practices.

Full text

PDF
109

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Branch M. N., Malagodi E. F. Where have all the behaviorists gone? Behav Anal. 1980 Spring;3(1):31–38. doi: 10.1007/BF03392376. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Branch M. N. On the role of "memory" in the analysis of behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Sep;28(2):171–179. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.28-171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Dixon L. S. The nature of control by spoken words over visual stimulus selection. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 May;27(3):433–442. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.27-433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Epstein R., Lanza R. P., Skinner B. F. "Self-awareness" in the pigeon. Science. 1981 May 8;212(4495):695–696. doi: 10.1126/science.212.4495.695. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Epstein R., Lanza R. P., Skinner B. F. Symbolic Communication Between Two Pigeons, (Columba livia domestica). Science. 1980 Feb 1;207(4430):543–545. doi: 10.1126/science.207.4430.543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Fodor J. A. The mind-body problem. Sci Am. 1981 Jan;244(1):114-20, 122-3. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0181-114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Herrnstein R. J., Hineline P. N. Negative reinforcement as shock-frequency reduction. J Exp Anal Behav. 1966 Jul;9(4):421–430. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1966.9-421. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Kantor J. R. An analysis of the experimental analysis of behavior (TEAB). J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Jan;13(1):101–108. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.13-101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Lambert J. V., Bersh P. J., Hineline P. N., Smith G. D. Avoidance conditioning with shock contingent upon the avoidance response. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Mar;19(2):361–367. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.19-361. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. MARX M. H. Intervening variable or hypothetical construct? Psychol Rev. 1951 Jul;58(4):235–247. doi: 10.1037/h0054854. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. MAZE J. R. Do intervening variables intervene? Psychol Rev. 1954 Jul;61(4):226–234. doi: 10.1037/h0061026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. McKearney J. W. Asking questions about behavior. Perspect Biol Med. 1977 Autumn;21(1):109–119. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. McKearney J. W., Barrett J. E. Punished behavior: increases in responding after d-amphetamine. Psychopharmacologia. 1975;41(1):23–26. doi: 10.1007/BF00421301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Moore J. Choice and multiple reinforcers. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Jan;37(1):115–122. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Nevin J. A. Editorial. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Jan;37(1):1–2. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-347. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  17. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1981.35-243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  18. REYNOLDS G. S. Attention in the pigeon. J Exp Anal Behav. 1961 Jul;4:203–208. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1961.4-203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Shimp C. P. Organization in memory and behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Jul;26(1):113–130. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.26-113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Sidman M. Reading and auditory-visual equivalences. J Speech Hear Res. 1971 Mar;14(1):5–13. doi: 10.1044/jshr.1401.05. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Sidman M., Tailby W. Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: an expansion of the testing paradigm. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Jan;37(1):5–22. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Wahler R. G., Fox J. J. Setting events in applied behavior analysis: Toward a conceptual and methodological expansion. J Appl Behav Anal. 1981 Fall;14(3):327–338. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1981.14-327. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Wilkie D. M., Masson M. E. Attention in the pigeon: a reevaluation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Sep;26(2):207–212. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.26-207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Behavior Analyst are provided here courtesy of Association for Behavior Analysis International

RESOURCES