Teleology and teleonomy in behavior analysis.
Purpose is just past consequences, but later papers show you can still talk about goals if you anchor them in reinforcement history.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The author wrote a theory paper. He asked, 'Should behavior analysts talk about purpose or goals?'
He said no. Purpose is just past consequences, not a future target pulling the behavior.
What they found
Words like 'in order to' or 'so that' tempt us to imagine a mind aiming at a future end.
The paper says drop the jargon. Say 'reinforcement history' instead.
How this fits with other research
Lazzeri et al. (2025) later pushed back. They say teleological talk is fine if you tie it to selection by consequences.
Rachlin (2013) and Simon (2023) go further. They use stories and interviews to show how 'molar' patterns let you speak of goals without ghosts in the head.
So the field moved from Staats (1994) 'ban the word goal' to 'keep the word, just ground it in consequences.'
Why it matters
When you write reports, you can now choose. Use plain consequence history like Staats (1994), or add goal language tied to reinforcement like Lazzeri et al. (2025). Pick the style that helps staff and parents understand the plan without slipping into mentalism.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Check your notes: replace any 'he did it to get' with 'he did it because in the past that response produced'.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Teleological descriptions and explanations refer to purpose as consequent to a phenomenon. They become nonteleological if purpose is represented as antecedent to the phenomenon. Such nonteleological statements are called teleonomic, especially when they refer to antecedent genetic "programs." In behavior analysis, purpose is attributed to the organism's history of consequences. Such a history may leave a trace-physiological (mechanism) or mental (cognitivism)-or the issue of traces may be irrelevant (contextualism). The history or trace is antecedent to current responding, and thus is not a teleological concept in the classical sense. It could be called a teleonomic concept, but this designation is undesirable if it implies exclusively genetic programming, because the history or trace is genetically programmed in evolutionary selection but not in ontogenetic selection. Therefore, the concepts of teleology and teleonomy are not useful for behavior analysis, and invoking them can be misleading. The concept of purpose can be useful if it is not reified.
The Behavior analyst, 1994 · doi:10.1007/BF03392654