Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine the issue of behavioral reflexivity from a behavior-analytic perspective. Two quotations from behavioral researchers are first considered, and both suggest that behavioral reflexivity is an issue best ignored. The nature of behavioral reflexivity is then examined, in detail, by dividing it into three basic assumptions. This examination suggests that behavioral reflexivity precludes the possibility of finding an ontological (correspondence-based) truth in behavior analysis, and therefore the ontological truth of behavioral reflexivity itself is undermined. If a pragmatic truth criterion is adopted, however, the truth of behavioral reflexivity must be defined in terms of its usefulness in achieving particular goals, and thus the ontological truth of behavioral reflexivity becomes irrelevant. As a starting point for demonstrating the usefulness of behavioral reflexivity, an interpretive behavior analysis of behavioral reflexivity is conducted. This analysis suggests that behavioral reflexivity is produced, in large part, by the contingencies operating in the verbal community that establish responding to one’s own behavior, and to “truth,” in accordance with the relational frames of HERE and THERE, and NOW and THEN. The analysis is then used as the basis for an exercise for teaching students about behavioral reflexivity. Insofar as this exercise is useful in achieving particular goals, behavioral reflexivity is a true and welcome feature of behavior analysis.
It would be absurd for the behaviorist to contend that he is in any way exempt from his analysis. He cannot step outside of the causal stream and observe behavior from some special point of vantage, ’perched on the epicycle of Mercury.’ In the very act of analyzing human behavior he is behaving. (Skinner, 1974, p. 234)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
BARNES, D. (1989). Behavior-behavior analysis, human schedule performance, and radical behaviorism. The Psychological Record, 39, 339–350.
BARNES, D. (1994). Stimulus equivalence and relational frame theory. The Psychological Record, 44, 91–124.
BARNES, D. (1996). Naming as a technical term: Sacrificing behavior analysis at the altar of popularity (invited commentary). Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 264–267.
BARNES, D., & HOLMES, Y. (1991). Radical behaviorism, stimulus equivalence, and human cognition. The Psychological Record, 41, 19–31.
BARNES, D., & ROCHE, B. (1994). Mechanistic ontology and contextualistic epistemology: A contradiction within behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 17, 165–168.
BARNES, D., & ROCHE, B. (1996). Relational frame theory and stimulus equivalence are fundamentally different: A reply to Saunders’ commentary. The Psychological Record, 46, 489–507.
DYMOND, S., & BARNES, D. (1995). A transformation of self-discrimination response functions in accordance with the arbitrarily applicable relations of sameness, more-than, and less-than. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 64, 163–184.
DYMOND, S., & BARNES, D. (1997). Behavior-analytic approaches to selfawareness. The Psychological Record,, 181–200.
HAYES, L. J. (1993). Reality and truth. In S. C. Hayes, L. J. Hayes, H. W. Reese, & T. R. Sarbin (Eds.), Varieties of scientific contextualism (pp. 35–44). Reno, NV: Context Press.
HAYES, L. J. (1997). Understanding mysticism. The Psychological Record, 47, 573–596.
HAYES, S. C. (1984). Making sense of spirituality. Behaviorism, 12, 99–110.
HAYES, S. C. (1991). A relational control theory of stimulus equivalence. In L J. Hayes & P. N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior: The first international institute on verbal relations (pp. 19–40). Reno, NV: Context Press.
HAYES, S. C. (1993). Analytic goals and the varieties of scientific contextualism. In S. C. Hayes, L. J. Hayes, H. W. Reese, & T. R. Sarbin (Eds.), Varieties of scientific contextualism (pp. 11–27). Reno, NV: Context Press.
HAYES, S. C. (1994). Relational frame theory: A functional approach to verbal events. In S. C. Hayes, L. J. Hayes, M. Sato, & K. Ono (Eds.), Behavior analysis of language and cognition (pp. 9–30). Reno, NV: Context Press.
HAYES, S. C. (1995). Knowing selves. The Behavior Therapist, 18, (No.3), 94–96.
HAYES, S. C., & BROWNSTEIN, A. J. (1986). Mentalism, behavior-behavior relations, and a behavior-analytic view of the purposes of science. The Behavior Analyst, 9, 175–190.
HAYES, S. C., & HAYES, L. J. (1989). The verbal action of the listener as a basis for rule-governance. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.), Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control (pp. 153–190). New York: Plenum.
HAYES, S. C., & HAYES, L. J. (1992). Verbal relations and the evolution of behavior analysis. The American Psychologist, 47, 1383–1395.
HAYES, S. C., STROSAHL, K., & WILSON, K. G. (in press). Acceptance and commitment therapy. New York: Guilford.
HAYES, S. C., & WILSON, K. G. (1993). Some applied implications of a contemporary behavior-analytic view of verbal events. The Behavior Analyst, 16, 283–301.
HAYES, S. C., & WILSON, K. G. (1994). Acceptance and commitment therapy: Altering the verbal support for experiential avoidance. The Behavior Analyst, 17, 289–303.
HAYES, S. C., & WILSON, K. G. (1996). Criticisms of relational frame theory: Implications for derived stimulus relations. The Psychological Record, 46, 221–236.
KEENAN, M. (1996). “W”-ing: Private events in the classroom. Behavior and Social Issues, 6, 75–84.
LEIGLAND, S. (1993). Scientific goals and the context of justification. In S. C. Hayes, L. J. Hayes, H. W. Reese, & T. R. Sarbin (Eds.), Varieties of scientific contextualism (pp. 28–33). Reno, NV: Context Press.
LIPKENS, R., HAYES, S. C., & HAYES, L. J. (1993). Longitudinal study of the development of derived relations in an infant. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 56, 201–239.
OLIVER, W. D., & LANDFIELD, A. W. (1963). Reflexivity: An unfaced issue of psychology. Journal of Individual Psychology, 20, 187–201.
SCHNAITTER, R. (1987). Behaviorism is not cognitive and cognitivism is not behavioral. Behaviorism, 15, 1–11.
SCHOENFELD, W. N., & FARMER, J. (1970). Reinforcement schedules and the “behavior stream.” In W. N. Schoenfeld (Ed.), The theory of reinforcement schedules. New York: Appleton.
SKINNER, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
SKINNER, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
SKINNER, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
SKINNER, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. London: Jonathan Cape.
SPINELLI, E. (1989). The interpreted world. London: Sage.
STADDON, J. E. R. (1993). Pepper with a pinch of psalt. The Behavior Analyst, 16, 245–250.
STEELE, D., & HAYES, S. C. (1991). Stimulus equivalence and arbitrarily applicable relational responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 519–555.
WHORF, B. L. (1956). Science and linguistics. In J. B. Carroll (Ed.), Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: Mit Press.
WILLIAMS, J. L. (1986). The behavioral and the mystical: Reflections on behaviorism and eastern thought. The Behavior Analyst, 9, 167–173.
ZURIFF, G. E. (1995). A review of Baum’s Understanding behaviorism: Science behavior, and culture. The Behavior Analyst, 18, 395–400.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The authors thank Adam Grundt, Linda Hayes, and Steve Hayes, for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. The first author also thanks his students, past and present, who contributed in many important and diverse ways to the ideas expressed in the current work. In particular, I thank Veronica Cullinan, Simon Dymond, Ian Grey, Olive Healy, Neil Hegarty, Geraldine Leader, Dave McAuliffe, Rosemary McCabe, and Mary Vaughan. I dedicate this paper to Sue, my wife and best friend, in celebration of our tenth wedding anniversary.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Barnes, D., Roche, B. A Behavior-Analytic Approach to Behavioral Reflexivity. Psychol Rec 47, 543–572 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395246
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395246