Aberrance in Science: Should Behavior Analysts Know About Psychological Behaviorism?

Abstract

Replies to the comments by J. D. Ulman, and J. J. Plaud (1990; and see record 1995-35392-001) on the article by A. W. Staats (see record 1995-00023-001) concerning psychological behaviorism. Plaud's main point in criticizing psychological (paradigmatic) behaviorism is that it adds nothing "to the study of behavior that is not already provided by radical behaviorism." Ulman in contrast states the 2 are quite different, with an "inherent incompatibility between radical behaviorism and paradigmatic behaviorism." The author argues that these conflicting opinions are representative of the lack of knowledge regarding the relationship between psychological and radical behaviorism, and behavior analysis. Staats also suggests that behavior-analytic evaluation of psychological behaviorism is marked by a profound communication problem. J. G. Osborne's (1995) historical note is addressed in a manner that is relevant to the criticisms by Plaud and Ulman. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2002 APA, all rights reserved)