Methodological Behaviorism from the Standpoint of a Radical Behaviorist.
Methodological behaviorism sneaks mentalism in through the back door; stick to Skinner’s radical line.
01Research in Context
What this study did
McDowell (2013) wrote a theory paper. He compared two kinds of behaviorism. One is methodological behaviorism. The other is Skinner’s radical behaviorism.
He says methodological behaviorism now uses hidden things like ‘mind’ to explain acts. That move looks like mentalism. He wants us to drop it and stay with Skinner’s path.
What they found
The paper finds that methodological behaviorism drifts toward mentalism. It uses made-up insides to explain outsides.
Radical behaviorism skips the inner stuff. It stays with action and the world. So it keeps the science cleaner.
How this fits with other research
Lord et al. (1986) already warned against mentalistic talk. McDowell (2013) echoes that warning but points the finger at methodological behaviorism itself.
Critchfield (1996) asked us to test mental words as verbal behavior. McDowell (2013) shows why that job is still urgent.
Malagodi (1986) said radical behaviorism needs to grow into a full worldview. McDowell (2013) answers by sweeping out the last bits of mental dust.
Why it matters
When you write a behavior plan, skip hidden causes like ‘he acted out because he was frustrated.’ Say what happened before and after the act. That keeps your treatment radical, not mentalistic. One clean sentence in your report can guard the whole field.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Delete any mentalistic phrase like ‘wanted attention’ in your last report. Replace it with the exact prior event you observed.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Methodological behaviorism is the name for a prescriptive orientation to psychological science. Its first and original feature is that the terms and concepts deployed in psychological theories and explanations should be based on observable stimuli and behavior. I argue that the interpretation of the phrase "based on" has changed over the years because of the influence of operationism. Its second feature, which developed after the first and is prominent in contemporary psychology, is that research should emphasize formal testing of a theory that involves mediating theoretical entities from an nonbehavioral dimension according to the hypothetico-deductive method. I argue that for contemporary methodological behaviorism, explanations of the behavior of both participants and scientists appeal to the mediating entities as mental causes, if only indirectly. In contrast to methodological behaviorism is the radical behaviorism of B. F. Skinner. Unlike methodological behaviorism, radical behaviorism conceives of verbal behavior in terms of an operant process that involves antecedent circumstances and reinforcing consequences, rather than in terms of a nonbehavioral process that involves reference and symbolism. In addition, radical behaviorism recognizes private behavioral events and subscribes to research and explanatory practices that do not include testing hypotheses about supposed mediating entities from another dimension. I conclude that methodological behaviorism is actually closer to mentalism than to Skinner's radical behaviorism.
The Behavior analyst, 2013 · doi:10.1007/BF03392306