Rule-governed behavior: Unifying radical and paradigmatic behaviorism.
Fusing two behaviorist lenses gives you both the why and the how of client rules.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Fields et al. (1991) wrote a theory paper. They asked how two wings of behaviorism can fit together. One wing is radical behaviorism. The other is paradigmatic behaviorism. The authors map where each wing looks at rules and how rules guide what people do.
What they found
The paper says the two wings do different jobs. Radical behaviorism shows why rules work. Paradigmatic behaviorism shows how people learn rules in the first place. Put together, you get a fuller story of rule-governed behavior.
How this fits with other research
Madden et al. (2003) built on the idea. They stretched the two-wing view into a four-part chain: basic lab, applied work, service, and philosophy. The 2003 paper keeps radical behaviorism as the base, just like Fields et al. (1991) did.
Pilowsky et al. (1998) used the blend to teach students. They showed that folk talk like "I think so" blocks learning. The paper says you must tear down those blocks before the Fields et al. (1991) mix can make sense.
Mace (1994) gave the mix legs. The paper lists three steps: animal model, human lab, real world. This plan turns the Fields et al. (1991) concept into a road map for making new tech.
Why it matters
When you write a behavior plan, state the rule for the client. Then ask, "Where did they learn this rule?" and "What keeps it strong?" Use the radical side to pick reinforcers. Use the paradigmatic side to find learning history. The two-lens check stops you from blaming "poor motivation" and points you to changeable contingencies.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Write the client rule on your plan, then add two boxes: "Learning history source?" and "Current reinforcer?" Fill both before session starts.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Commonalities and differences between Skinner's analysis of verbal behavior and the paradigmatic behaviorism (PB) approach are described as a means of introducing the latter to behavior analysis. The focus is on treating the topic of rule-governed behavior-a topic of current interest in behavior analysis in addressing the challenge of cognitive psychology-within the PB framework. Dealing behaviorally with traditional psychology interests is considered important in PB, and this article aims to advance toward that goal. PB has presented a framework that deals with not only the behavioral description of language but also with language function as well as language acquisition. This includes a treatment of the manner in which verbal stimuli generally can control motor behavior. This framework includes analyses in addition to those present in the behavior analytic framework, along with empirical developments, and these can be used to enhance a behavioral understanding of important parts of verbal behavior and the effects of verbal stimuli on behavior, including rule-governed phenomena. Our purpose is to use the particular topic of rule-governed behavior to argue that a more explicit interaction between radical and paradigmatic behaviorism would advance behaviorism and also enable it to have a stronger impact upon psychology and the scientific community.
The Analysis of verbal behavior, 1991 · doi:10.1007/BF03392867