Varieties of scientific explanation.

Embregts (2000) compares three ways scientists explain things. The paper shows how Skinner’s radical behaviorism uses a different style than the two classic models.

It is a theory piece, not an experiment. No clients, no data sheets—just clear maps of how explanations work.

Radical behaviorist explanations are practical stories about how words gain power. They are not tidy "if A then B" laws.

Instead, they track how speaker and listener react to past consequences. The goal is workable prediction, not perfect proof.

Schoenfeld (1995) set the stage. That paper defended Skinner’s view of language after Chomsky’s attack. Embregts (2000) widens the lens and shows the same verbal-behavior logic works for any scientific explanation.

McGrother et al. (1996) give live data. Their study proves that a reprimand can reinforce destructive behavior. This real-world case shows the pragmatic style J describes: look at what the words do, not what they "mean."

Murdock et al. (1977) used single-case design to shape clearer speech. Their focus on verbal topography pairs with J’s call to treat "explanation" as shaped verbal action.

When you write reports, ditch the urge to sound like a physics textbook. State what behavior occurred, what consequence followed, and how that history predicts future talk. Your readers—parents, teachers, payers—grasp stories faster than laws. Use plain words tied to observable events and your recommendations will travel further.