Pragmatism and Behavior Analysis

  • Kennon A. Lattal
  • Joseph S. Laipple


The American philosophical movement known as pragmatism has played a major role in psychology since the two developed together from the late 19th century through the early years of the 20th century. As B.F. Skinner shifted intellectually from his early positivist framework, pragmatism was strongly reflected in his mid-to-late 20th century behavior analysis. This chapter briefly reviews the history and major tenets of pragmatism before examining the continuing interplay between pragmatism and behavior-analytic research, application, and conceptual issues.


Experimental Analysis Behavior Analysis Apply Behavior Analysis Behavior Analyst Successful Working 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anger, D. (1956). The dependence of interresponse times upon the relative reinforcement of different interresponse times. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52, 145–161.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azrin, N. H. (1956). Effects of two intermittent schedules of immediate and nonimmediate punishment. Journal of Psychology, 42, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azrin, N. H., & Holz, W. C. (1966). Punishment. In W. K. Honig (Ed.), Operant behavior: Areas of research and application (pp. 380–447 ). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  4. Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baum, W. M. (1973). The correlation-based law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 20.Google Scholar
  6. Baum, W. M. (1994). Understanding behaviorism: Science, behavior, and culture. New York: Harper-Collins.Google Scholar
  7. Baum, W. M. (1995). Introduction to molar behavior analysis. Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis, 21, 7–25.Google Scholar
  8. Baum, W. M. (2001). Molar versus molecular as a paradigm clash. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 75, 338–341.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baum, W. M. (2002). From molecular to molar: A paradigm shift in behavior analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78, 95–116.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bridgeman, P. W. (1927). The logic of modern physics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Chiesa, M. (1992). Radical behaviorism: The philosophy and the science. Boston: Author’s Cooperative.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, M. R., & Nagel, E. (1934). An introduction to logic and scientific method. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.Google Scholar
  13. Dawkins, R. (1986). The blind watchmaker. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  14. Dewey, J. (1916). Essays in experimental logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dinsmoor, J. A. (2001). Stimuli inevitably generated by behavior that avoids electric shock are inherently reinforcing. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 75, 311–333.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hayes, S. C., Hayes, L. J., & Reese, H. W. (1988). Finding the philosophical core: A review of Stephen C. Pepper’s World Hypotheses: A Study in Evidence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Herrnstein, R. J. (1970). On the law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 243–266.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Herrnstein, R. J., & Hineline, P. N. (1966). Negative reinforcement as shock frequency reduction. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 9, 421–430.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hineline, P. N. (1977). Negative reinforcement and avoidance. In W. K. Honig & J. E. R. Staddon (Eds.), Handbook of operant behavior (pp. 364–414 ). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  21. Hineline, P. N. (2001). Beyond the molar-molecular distinction: We need multiscaled analyses. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 75, 342–347.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Koegel, R. L., Carr, E. G., Sailor, W., Anderson, J., Albin, R. W., & O’Neill, R. E. (1990). Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15, 125–132.Google Scholar
  23. Iversen, I. H. (1991). Methods of analyzing behavior patterns. In Iversen, I. H. & Latta], K. A. (Eds.), Techniques in the behavioral and neural sciences vol. 6: Experimental analysis of behavior (Part 2, pp. 193–241 ). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  24. Iversen, I. H. (1992). Skinner’s early research: From reflexology to operant conditioning. American Psychologist, 47, 1318–1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Iwata, B. (1988). The development and adoption of controversial default technologies. The Behavior Analyst, 11, 149–157.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. James, W. (1890). Principles of Psychology. New York: Holt.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. James, W. (1892). Psychology. New York: Holt.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. James, W. (1963) Pragmatism. Cleveland, OH: Meridian. ( Original work published 1907 ).Google Scholar
  29. Lattal, K. A., & Doepke, K. A. (2001). Say-do correspondence as conditional discrimination: Insights from experiments with pigeons. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 127–144.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lattal, K. A., & Gleeson, S. (1990). Response acquisition with delayed reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 16, 27–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lovejoy, A. O. (1908a). The thirteen pragmatisms. I. The Journal of Philosophy, 5, 5–12.Google Scholar
  32. Lovejoy, A. O. (1908b). The thirteen pragmatisms. II. The Journal of Philosophy, 5, 29–39.Google Scholar
  33. Mach, E. (1960). The science of mechanics: A critical and historical account of its development. Peru, IL: Open Court. ( Original work published 1893 ).Google Scholar
  34. Marr, M. J. (1993). Contextualistic mechanism or mechanistic contextualism?: The straw machine as tar baby. The Behavior Analyst, 16, 59–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Marr, M. J. (1998, November). Realistic pragmatism or pragmatic realism: What in the world is there to talk about? Paper presented at the Fourth International Congress on Behaviorism and the Sciences of Behavior, Seville, Spain.Google Scholar
  36. Menand, L. (2001). The metaphysical club: A story of ideas in America. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.Google Scholar
  37. Moore, E. C. (1961). American pragmatism: Peirce, James, and Dewey. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Moore, J. (1998). On behaviorism, theories, and hypothetical constructs. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 19, 215–242.Google Scholar
  39. Morris, C. (1970). The pragmatic movement in American philosophy. New York: Braziller.Google Scholar
  40. Morris, E. K. (1993). Behavior analysis and mechanism: One is not the other. The Behavior Analyst, 16, 25–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Moxley, R. A. (2001). Sources for Skinner’s pragmatic selectionism in 1945. The Behavior Analyst, 24, 201–212.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Palmer, D. C., & Donahoe, J. W. (1992). Essentialism and selectionism in cognitive science and behavior analysis. American Psychologist, 47, 1344–1358.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pepper, S. C. (1942). World hypotheses: A study in evidence. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  44. Peirce, C. S. (1878). How to make our ideas clear. Popular Science Monthly, 12, 286–302.Google Scholar
  45. Rachlin, H. L. (1992). Teleological behaviorism. American Psychologist, 47, 1371–1382.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rachlin, H. L. (1995). Burrhus Frederick Skinner 1904–1990. Biographical Memoirs, 67, 2–17.Google Scholar
  47. Reese, H. W. (1986). Behavioral and dialectical psychologies. In L. P. Lipsitt & J. H. Cantor (Eds.), Experimental child psychologist: Essays and experiments in honor of Charles C. Spiker (pp. 157–195 ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  48. Reese, H. W. (1993). Comments about Morris’s paper. The Behavior Analyst, 16, 67–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Reese, H. W. (1997). A belated response to Moxley. The Behavior Analyst, 20, 43–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Scheffler, I. (1974). Four pragmatists: A critical introduction to Peirce, James, Mead, and Dewey. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  51. Schiller, E. C. S. (1912). Studies in humanism. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  52. Schneider, S. M. (1997). Back to our philosophical roots: A journal review of Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society. The Behavior Analyst, 20, 17–23.Google Scholar
  53. Silberberg, A., & Fantino, E. (1970). Choice, rate of reinforcement, and the changeover delay. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 187–197.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sidman, M. (1989). Coercion and its fallout. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative.Google Scholar
  55. Skinner, B. F. (1935). The generic nature of the concepts of stimulus and response. Journal of General Psychology, 12, 40–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  57. Skinner, B. F. (1945). The operational analysis of psychological terms. Psychological Review, 52, 270–277, 291–294.Google Scholar
  58. Skinner, B. F. (1950). Are theories of learning necessary? Psychological Review, 57, 193–216.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Skinner, B. E (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  60. Skinner, B. F. (1956). A case history in scientific method. American Psychologist, 11, 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Skinner, B. E (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  62. Smith, L. D. (1986). Behaviorism and logical positivism: A reassessment of the alliance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Staddon, J. E. R. (1993). The conventional wisdom of behavior analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60, 439–447.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thompson, T. (1984). The examining magistrate for nature: A retrospective review of Claude Bernard’s An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 41, 211–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. van Houten, R. (1983). Punishment: From the animal laboratory to applied settings. In S. Axelrod, S., & J. Apsche (Eds.), The effects of punishment on human behavior (pp. 13–44 ). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  66. Watson, J. B. (1958). Behaviorism. Chicago: Phoenix. ( Original version published 1924 ).Google Scholar
  67. Watson, J. B. (1961). Autobiography. In C. Murchison (Ed.) A history of psychology in autobiography Vol. 3., (pp. 271–281). New York: Russell & Russell. (Original version 1936 ).Google Scholar
  68. Zuriff, G. E. (1986). Behaviorism: A conceptual reconstruction. New York: Columbia UniversityPress.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kennon A. Lattal
    • 1
  • Joseph S. Laipple
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWest Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA
  2. 2.Aubrey Daniels InternationalAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations