When We Speak of Intentions

  • Philip N. Hineline

Abstract

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Surely people all find this a valid aphorism despite any skepticism regarding hell as a distinct geographical location. Even if one assumed that Hades were to be found at some particular place, this reference to a road and its paving would be recognized as purely metaphorical, and one would not confuse intentions with bricks or cobblestones. Nevertheless, most discussions of intention, as well as intentional statements themselves, are subtly susceptible to the kinds of distortion that can occur through metaphor. Behavior analysts have traditionally steered clear of that problem by eschewing intentional language. If intentions are mentioned at all, it typically is to reject them as “mental fictions.” But important and interesting relations are at issue when people speak of intentions, and it may be enlightening to closely examine those ways of speaking and writing. Most pervasively, intentional language induces us to look within the actor for sources of action even though the identification of intentions is usually based upon external consequences of the relevant actions. It can be shown, however, that more subtle features in common patterns of speaking and writing can also obscure the events that intentional prose is actually about.

Keywords

Behavior Analysis Intentional Statement Behavior Analyst Component Pattern Efficient Causation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andronis, P. T. (1983). Symbolic aggression by pigeons. Dissertation: The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  2. Andronis, P. T., Layng, T. V. J., & Goldiamond, I. (1997). Contingency adduction of “symbolic aggression” by pigeons. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 14, 5–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Baum, W. M. (1995). Radical behaviorism and the concept of agency. Behaviorology, 3, 93–106.Google Scholar
  4. Braithwaite, R. B. (1959). Scientific explanation: A study of the function of theory, probability, and law in science Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Carroll, J. B. (Ed.) (1956). Language, thought and reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Catania, A. C. (1975). The myth of self-reinforcement.Behaviorism,3,192–199.Google Scholar
  7. Catania, A. C. (1992). Learning (third edition). Inglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
  8. Dawkins, R. (1981). Selfish genes and selfish memes. In D. R. Hofstadter & D. C. Dennet (Eds.), The mind’s I: Fantasies and reflections on self and soul (pp. 124–144 ). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  9. Funk & Wagnalls (1960). Standard dictionary of the English language: International edition. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.Google Scholar
  10. Glenn, S. S. & Field, D. P. (1994). Functions of the environment in behavioral evolution. The Behavior Analyst, 17, 241–259.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hayes, S. C. (Ed.) (1989). Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies and instructional control. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  12. Hayes, S. C., Rosenfarb, I., Wulfert, E., Munt, E. D., Korn, Z., & Zettle, R. D. (1985). Self-reinforcement effects: An artifact of social standard setting? Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 201–214.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hineline, P. N. (1980). The language of behavior analysis: Its community, its functions, and its limitations. Behaviorism, 8, 67–86.Google Scholar
  14. Hineline, P. N. (1986). Re-tuning the operant-respondent distinction. In T. Thompson & M. D. Zeiler (Eds.), Analysis and integration of behavioral units: A festschrift in honor of Kenneth MacCorquodale (pp. 55–79 ). Hillsdale, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  15. Hineline, P. N. (1990). The Origins of Environment-Based Psychological Theory. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 53, 305–320.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hineline, P. N. (1992). A Self-interpretive behavior analysis. American Psychologist, 47, 1274–1286.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hineline, P. N., & Wanchisen, B. A. (1989). Correlated hypothesizing and the distinction between contingency-shaped and rule-governed behavior. In S. G. Hayes (Ed.), Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies and instructional control (pp. 221–268 ). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  18. Jaynes, J. (1976). The origins of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  19. Johnson, K. R., & Layng, T. V. J. (1992). Breaking the structuralist barrier: Literacy and numeracy with fluency. American Psychologist, 47, 1475–1490.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Killeen, P. R. (2001). The four causes of behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 136–145.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lana, R. E. (1994). Social history and the behavioral repertoire. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 315–322.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Layng, T. V. J., & Andronis, P. T. (1984). Toward a functional analysis of delusional speech and hallucinatory behavior. The Behavior Analyst, 7, 139–156.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Morris. E. K., Higgins, S. T., & Bickel, W. K. (1982). Comments on cognitive science in the experimental analysis of behavior. The Behavior Analyst, 5, 109–125.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Neuman, P. (2002). An intentional interpretive perspective. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  25. Neuringer, A. J. (1993). Reinforced variation and selection. Animal Learning and Behavior, 21, 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Neuringer, A. J., Deiss, C., & Olson, G. (2000). Reinforced variability and operant learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 26, 98–111.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rachlin, H. (1994). Behavior and mind: The roots of modern psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Sambursky, S. (1974). Physical thought: From the presocratics to the quantum physicists. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  29. Schnaitter, R. (1978). Private causes. Behaviorism, 6, 1–12.Google Scholar
  30. Skinner, B. F. (1978). The ethics of helping people. In: Skinner, B. F. Reflections on behaviorism and society (pp. 33–47 ). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  31. Skinner, B. F. (1974). About Behaviorism. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  32. Skinner, B. F. (1981). Selection by consequences. Science, 213, 501–504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Woodworth, R. S. (1921). Psychology (revised edition). New York: Holt.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip N. Hineline
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations