The challenge of characterizing operations in the mechanisms underlying behavior.
Start hunting for measurable micro-behaviors that bridge brain and action.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Bechtel (2005) wrote a think-piece, not an experiment. He asked: what sits between brain cells and whole actions?
He looked at how biochemistry solved the same puzzle. Chemists built mid-level rules that link atoms to living functions. He says behavior science needs the same ladder.
What they found
The paper claims we are missing a rung. Neural spikes are too tiny. Molar concepts like "self-esteem" are too big.
He urges us to invent molecular operations—small, measurable events that chain into larger behavior. Think of them as the amino acids of action.
How this fits with other research
Rose et al. (2000) beat him to the punch. They already pushed establishing operations as that middle rung. William widens the call to any measurable micro-event, not just EO shifts.
Waldron et al. (2023) show the idea in action. They track session-by-session engagement to predict dropout—exactly the kind of mid-level mechanism William wants.
Regação et al. (2025) merge stimulus equivalence, RFT, and naming theory. Their fusion is another live example of building the molecular bridge William demands.
Why it matters
Next time you write a program, list the tiny links you can count today—eye direction, micro-response latency, brief vocal pause. Measure one. You will be testing William’s hunch that these mini-events glue neurons to big social change.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one client goal, then add a micro measure (e.g., milliseconds to initiate response) and chart it across five trials.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Neuroscience and cognitive science seek to explain behavioral regularities in terms of underlying mechanisms. An important element of a mechanistic explanation is a characterization of the operations of the parts of the mechanism. The challenge in characterizing such operations is illustrated by an example from the history of physiological chemistry in which some investigators tried to characterize the internal operations in the same terms as the overall physiological system while others appealed to elemental chemistry. In order for biochemistry to become successful, researchers had to identify a new level of operations involving operations over molecular groups. Existing attempts at mechanistic explanation of behavior are in a situation comparable to earlier approaches to physiological chemistry, drawing their inspiration either from overall psychology activities or from low-level neural processes. Successful mechanistic explanations of behavior require the discovery of the appropriate component operations. Such discovery is a daunting challenge but one on which success will be beneficial to both behavioral scientists and cognitive and neuroscientists.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2005 · doi:10.1901/jeab.2005.103-04