What Makes Behavior Analysis Radical?

[Ready for Fall 2026]

Modified: 2026-07-27 2:52 PM CDST

• What is radical behaviorism, or, more aptly, behavior analysis? What makes it "radical"?
  • First, consider classic behaviorism of both the Watsonian or Hullian variety.
  • Each of those types of behaviorism attempted to rid themselves completely of subjectivity.
  • Watson even explained thinking as sub-vocal thought, and looked for movement of the vocal cords while subjects thought.
  • Hull admitted to internal states, but only as they could be operationally defined.
  • So, hunger was not a feeling but a level of food deprivation.
  • But, Hull could not effectively operationalize states such as love; therefore, such topics had to be excluded from psychology.
  • Both Watsonian and Hullian behaviorism, then, were ineffective in dealing with mental issues.
  • One response to this problem was the rise of cognitivism, but another was Skinner's behavior analysis.

• The radical thing that Skinner did was to admit mental states into behavioristic analyses, but in a subtle way.
  • Those mental states were not called mental states; rather, they were included as a sub-category of the environment, and, further, limited to only one's personal environment. (Note that many radical behaviorists or behavior analysts would not agree to my categorizing the internal environment as a mental state.)
  • So, in Skinner's view, each of us is affected by the external environment and by our own internal environment.
  • But, the rules of engagement, as it were, are exactly the same in both, meaning that reinforcement, stimulus control, the three-term contingency, in short, all of the constructs of behavior analysis, apply equally well to both environments.
  • Take the following example, given by Jay Moore (personal communication).
    • You are playing tennis, and as you hit the ball, you say, "Keep your eyes on the ball."
    • Then, you notice that the ball lands in the court more often when you do.
    • So, you keep saying that phrase to yourself as you hit the ball, or, the effect, keeping the ball in the court, is reinforcing your private verbal behavior.
    • But, consider what would happen if you said the phrase but the ball was just as likely to hit the net, the back fence, or the court.
    • Then, that private verbal behavior would not be reinforced and, eventually, you would not say that to yourself anymore.
    • Notice how it is the contingency, the fact that the phrase and the behavior affect each other, that determines the likelihood that the phrase will be repeated.
    • Also, notice that the phrase itself has no power over the behavior, nor does it have separate status (ie. it is not a "mental event").
• Behavior analysts are fun to talk to because they seem to live in two separate worlds.
• Like the rest of us, they have desires or wishes, but, deep inside, they know better.
• They know that those desires and wishes do not have power over them; they are just private environmental events to be reinforced or extinguished.
• In research, they are constantly on the lookout for contingencies of reinforcement.
• In some fields, they have been wildly successful. Look, for instance, at behavioral therapy and behavior modification.
• Cognitivists argue with behavior analysts most when it comes to explaining complex behaviors.
  • The issue is not whether a cognitivist or a behavioral analyst can provide an explanation; both can.
  • Rather, the issue boils down to whether unobservables will be admitted as explanatory aids.
    • Behavior analysts do not admit them while cognitivists do.
    • Parsimony may ultimately decide between the two types of explanation, and some compromise may evolve.
    • For relatively simple issues, behavior-analytic explanations may be more parsimonious.
  • However, for complex issues, where behavior-analytic environmental constructions become laborious and unstable, then cognitive constructs may be more parsimonious.
• Time may tell.