Testing the limits of behavior analysis: A review of Frans de Waal's<i>Are we smart enough to know how smart animals are?</i>

Leslie (2018) read Frans de Waal's book about animal minds. The book claims animals show high-level thinking. The author asked if behavior analysis can explain the same data without mental words.

The paper is a book review, not an experiment. It tests whether our field can stretch to cover smart-looking animal acts.

The review says yes. We can account for planning, empathy, and culture with environment-behavior relations. We just need bigger, more complex operant models.

The paper argues that leaving these topics to cognitive science shrinks our turf. Behavior analysis can and should own them.

Morris et al. (1982) drew a hard line: no mental words, ever. Leslie (2018) softens the line. He says expand the analysis, don't quit the field.

Richmond (1983) made a similar plea years ago. He argued that big problems like species survival need every tool, including cognitive talk. The new review echoes this call but keeps the lens on animal data.

Fernandez et al. (2023) show the idea in action. Their zoo-ABA update uses single-case designs to boost animal welfare. It proves the expanded scope already works outside the lab.

If you work with humans or animals, the paper pushes you to try richer behavioral accounts before grabbing mental labels. Ask what reinforcers shape the response, what history creates the pattern, and what context maintains it. You keep the science unified, and you stay in charge of the explanation.