Values and the scientific culture of behavior analysis.
When data alone can’t pick the right move, hit pause and run a quick Dewey-style team dialogue before you act.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Watson et al. (2007) wrote a theory paper. They asked how behavior analysts can mix values with data when the numbers alone feel cold.
They borrowed John Dewey’s pragmatism. The idea: gather your team, clients, and stakeholders. Talk until the next action feels right to the group.
What they found
The paper does not give numbers. It gives a map. When an ethical knot appears, stop running more trials. Start a structured dialogue first.
How this fits with other research
Leigland (1999) beat them to the bridge. That paper showed Rorty’s pragmatism already hugs Skinner’s radical behaviorism. R et al. swap Rorty for Dewey and move from broad philosophy to daily ethics.
Weatherly (2021) takes the same talk-first spirit and turns it into journal policy. Weatherly gives eight guide rails for adding a standing ethics column so the dialogue keeps happening after the one meeting ends.
Malott (2018) extends the idea into training. Malott tells us to ground every clinical choice in JABA or JEAB first. The values-science mix now shapes how we teach new BCBAs, not just how we solve one dilemma.
Why it matters
You already graph data. Now graph your values next to them. When a parent wants bleach trials or a school wants shock back, call a 15-minute Dewey huddle. Invite the parent, teacher, and senior BCBA. State the dilemma, list shared goals, brainstorm options, pick the one that passes both the data check and the gut check. Document the decision and review it in 30 days. One short meeting can save months of regret.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Schedule a 15-minute values huddle the next time staff disagree on treatment direction.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
As scientists and practitioners, behavior analysts must make frequent decisions that affect many lives. Scientific principles have been our guide as we work to promote effective action across a broad spectrum of cultural practices. Yet scientific principles alone may not be sufficient to guide our decision making in cases with potentially conflicting outcomes. In such cases, values function as guides to work through ethical conflicts. We will examine two ethical systems, radical behaviorism and functional contextualism, from which to consider the role of values in behavior analysis, and discuss potential concerns. Finally, we propose philosophical pragmatism, focusing on John Dewey's notions of community and dialogue, as a tradition that can help behavior analysts to integrate talk about values and scientific practices in ethical decision making.
The Behavior analyst, 2007 · doi:10.1007/BF03392139