Rules of Conduct for Behavior Analysts in the Presence of Hypothetical Constructs: A Commentary on Eckard and Lattal (2020)
Tolerate fuzzy words long enough to test and replace them with behavior facts.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Machado et al. (2020) wrote a short guide, not a lab study. They watched another paper toy with mental words like "mind" and "drive."
The team built four plain rules for any BCBA who meets these fuzzy ideas. Rule sheet, not data sheet.
What they found
The guide says: tolerate the fuzzy word, test it with data, build a behavior story, then compare stories. Don’t just throw the word out.
No numbers, just a map for staying scientific while talking with other fields.
How this fits with other research
Kingston et al. (2010) did the opposite. They used a fuzzy word, "experiential avoidance," as a real middle step in a math model. The two papers look like foes, but they serve different jobs. Jessica et al. needed a quick screen for many problem behaviors in a clinic. Machado et al. warn against treating that screen as a final answer.
Dall et al. (1997) asked for clearer tech specs years ago. Machado’s four rules answer that call by giving a spec sheet for handling loose terms.
Suarez et al. (2023) list nine steps every ethic model uses. Machado’s four rules tuck neatly into those steps when you face a fuzzy concept during an ethics choice.
Why it matters
You will hear mental words in IEP meetings, clinic notes, and parent talk. These four rules keep you polite, curious, and still behavior-analytic. Use them to turn "He acts out because he’s anxious" into a testable plan you can measure and change.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one mental word in a client file, sketch a quick behavior story that could produce the same data, and share both stories at team meeting.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Eckard and Lattal (2020) summarized the behavioristic view of hypothetical constructs and theories, and then, in a novel and timely manner, applied this view to a critique of internal clock models of temporal control. In our three-part commentary, we aim to contribute to the authors’ discussion by first expanding upon their view of the positive contributions afforded by constructs and theories. We then refine and question their view of the perils of reifying constructs and assigning them causal properties. Finally, we suggest to behavior analysts four rules of conduct for dealing with mediational theories: tolerate constructs proposed with sufficient reason; consider them seriously, both empirically and conceptually; develop alternative, behavior-analytic models with overlapping empirical domains; and contrast the various models. Through variation and selection, behavioral science will evolve.
Perspectives on Behavior Science, 2020 · doi:10.1007/s40614-020-00272-w