Private events: Do they belong in a science of human behavior?

Mueller et al. (2000) wrote a think-piece, not an experiment. They asked one question: should we study thoughts and feelings like we study talking and walking?

The authors say yes. They argue private events are behavior, just harder to see. They want the field to measure and treat them like any other response.

There are no numbers. The paper maps a path: define private events in public ways, test them with normal methods, and keep the science practical.

In short, treat "I feel anxious" as verbal behavior that can be shaped, reinforced, or extinguished.

Rose et al. (2000) published the same year with the same rally cry. They use "establishing operations" to explain why emotions swing motivation. Together the two papers double the volume on the same message: bring insides into behavior analysis.

Cole (1994) had already shown how to do it. That paper treated attitude surveys as context-bound verbal acts, giving an early worked example of studying private words as behavior.

Belisle (2020) picks up the baton twenty years later. It shows how to test models of invisible relations without claiming to peek inside a mind, giving researchers a modern toolkit the 2000 paper only wished for.

If you write behavior plans, you already face private events: client reports of pain, anxiety, or urges. This paper gives you permission to target those reports like any other behavior. Record their form, find their triggers, and reinforce clearer or calmer versions. No dualism required—just good behavior analysis.