Interbehavioral psychology and radical behaviorism: Some similarities and differences.

Kantor’s interbehavioral psychology and Skinner’s radical behaviorism are often taught as rivals. The author lined up the two side-by-side. He showed where they overlap and where they fill each other’s gaps.

The paper is pure theory—no new data, just a map for scientists and practitioners.

The two systems share the same root: behavior is the subject matter, environment is the cause, and mental events are not hidden movers.

Kantor’s “field” adds the wider context—history, culture, biology—while Skinner’s three-term contingency gives you the tight ABC unit you use every day.

Used together, they give both the wide lens and the zoom lens for viewing behavior.

Malagodi (1986) took the same open-hand spirit and pushed it further, saying radical behaviorism must also study whole cultures, not just single organisms.

Michael (1995) then sharpened the edge, showing that “private events” are simply behavior with limited access—another layer you can plug into either lens.

Roche et al. (2003) later showed the field can even talk with social constructionists because both camps reject mind-as-thing talk.

Baum (2018) updated the language again, swapping “discrete responses” for “molar activities” stretched across time—an expansion both Kantor and Skinner make room for.

You already run ABC analyses. Adding Kantor’s field reminds you to scan the client’s history, cultural rules, and biological setting events before you write your behavior plan. The paper gives you permission—and a blueprint—to blend both views instead of picking sides. Next time a caregiver says “He acts out for no reason,” zoom out to the field, then zoom in to the immediate contingency. You will write richer hypotheses and catch variables you used to miss.