Aportaciones al Análisis de Ia Conducta: Memorias del Primer

Congreso, Mexico, Ed. Trillas, 1974, pp.15-22.

Interbehavioral Psychology: How related to the Experimental

Analysis of Behavior?

J. R. Kantor

In this company of psychologists it is highly superogatory to acclaim

the great significance of psychological events. We are therefore fully
in accord in the belief that psychology should be a science on a par
with astronomy, physics, chemistry, and biology.

To achieve this goal psychology must abide by the two following

interrelated principles.

1. The avoidance of irrelevant and harmful cultural traditions.

2. The exclusive concern with confrontable events.

In this way and only in this way can we hope for an authentic system
of Psychology. Unfortunately to follow the lead of the first principle
to be difficult, since mentalistic views persist in dominating the
thinking of psychologists even when they are committed to
experimental procedures in their work. On the whole it is no easy task
to lift psychology out of the psychic morass in which it has been
immersed for two thousand years.

From the history of psychology we learn of two revolutionary events

which during the present century have helped to free psychology from
the stranglehold of mentalism, and to make possible a scientific
discipline of psychology. One was the escalation of the various
sciences, and the other the establishment of the doctrine of Biological
Evolution. The general development of the physicochemical sciences
and the various branches of the biological disciplines provided strong
incentives and support for the evolution of psychology as a science.
The science of physiology turned students of psychological behavior
in the direction of understanding the behaving organism and showed
the way to experimentation.
It was through the spread of the doctrine of biological continuity that
the barrier between the human and nonhuman was removed so that
studies of animal behavior could be included as features of the
psychological domain.

It is a fair assumption that both the escalation of interest and

achievement in science as well as the acceptance of evolutionary
principles greatly aided the escape of psychology from the
transcendental ideology of the Dark Ages. The freedom was gained to
observe and investigate the actions of organisms as naturalistic
adaptations to the things and conditions that environ them.

Happily the second principle offers very little resistance. The very
presence of such a multiplicity of behavior events of both human and
subhuman types almost forced upon psychologists the observational
and experimental stimulation to carry on scientific studies.

The realization that a psychological science can be inaugurated on the

basis of studying behavior unencumbered by animistic notions has
given rise to an antimentalistic movement which became known as
Behaviorism. The pivotal point of this movement is the freedom from
all preoccupation with internal states, mental or psychic processes or
introspective consciousness, all of which are derivations from the
intangible, extraspatial soul invented in the dark ages of psychological
history.

Now I should like to present a brief and concise sketch of

Interbehaviorial Psychology as a systematic type of antimentalism,
with which I have been concerned for over half a century.

The basic point of interbehavioral psychology is that every

psychological event consists of a complex field comprised of a
number of components or factors. These fields are the outgrowth of
ecological biology and not of the isolated organismic specializations
that go by the name of anatomy and physiology.

Psychological fields represent a fourth evolution following (1) the

inorganic, (2) the phylogenetic, (3) the ontogenetic evolutions of
organisms and their environing objects and conditions. This series of
evolution levels are illustrated in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1:

Evolution of acts and traits as responses

Fourth Evolution: to objects, conditions, and institutions.
Interbehavioral History Development of-stimulus and response
functions.
Third Evolution: Embryological development of
Ontogenetic Evolution individual organisms.
Evolution of organism-environment
Second Evolution: adjustments and adaptations.
Phylogenetic Evolution Evolution of species, genera, phyla.
Development of plants, and animals.
Development of the earth.
Evolution of planets and stars.
First Evolution:
Inorganic Evolution Development of chemical elements,
compounds, and various chemical
processes.

It is of the utmost importance to be aware of the details of the

behavior segments which are the primary units of psychological event
fields. The accompanying diagram (Fig. 2) points to the factors that
make up a psychological field.
Fig. 2 Behavior Segment (or Unit Psychological Event)

RB = Reactional RF = Response
Biography; Function;
SE = Stimulus SF = Stimulus
Evolution; Function

Central to all segments of interbehavior are the interdependent actions

or functions of the organism and of the stimulus object.

These actions are mutual and reciprocal, and are usually build up in
previous confrontations of the organism and the stimulus object or
condition. The reciprocity feature of psychological interbehavior are
well represented by the double headed arrow as in Fig. 3.

R<-->S

Next we must take into account the media of contact which constitutes
an enabling condition for the interbehavior of organisms and stimulus
objects. Examples are the light and air waves which mediate visual
and auditory interactions.

An equally important set of factors constitute the setting or framework

of the behavior segments. Such are the specific conditions which
influence the occurrence or nonoccurrence of a particular
interbehavior, and also the specific way the activity is carried out.
Finally, it must be pointed out that each behavior segment is
abstracted from the grand continuum of behavior. Accordingly, each
segment is derived from and influenced by the previous segments
making up the organism's interbehavioral history and exerts important
influences upon the immediately following behavior segments.

The precise merits of interbehavioral psychology is a thorougoing

naturalism devoid of any transcendental principle, and moreover it is
fully capable of adequately treating every type of psychological
behavior whether performed by human or on human animals.

At this point we face the question which is frequently posed,

concerning the relationship between Interbehavioral Psychology and
the movement called The Experimental Analysis of Behavior (EAB).
While a number of psychologists have suggested that the EAB
movement is directly derived from Interbehavioral Psychology I am
loath to endorse this viewpoint. Instead I propose to point out some
similarities and some dissimilarities between the two movements. I do
so in spite of the fact that since interbehavioral psychology became
developed in the early decades of the present century it may appear
plausible to believe that EAB was at least partially influenced by that
development.

Similarities

Considering the great importance of establishing psychology on a firm

scientific basis there can be no greater resemblance between
interbehavioral psychology and EAB than the fact that they both are
thoroughly antimentalistic. Like interbehavioral psychology EAB
strives to eliminate all of the traditional and historical animistic
entities whether called "mind", "consciousness", "sensation", or
"emotion".

Variances

While from a scientific standpoint the strongest ties bind

interbehavioral psychology and EAB together are differences which
might be noted. I point some of these out under several headings.
Proximate origin. Interbehavioral psychology originated as the
counterpart of the other sciences by selecting as its province the
adjustment of organisms to their environing things and events. These
adjustments are to be investigated by field observation,
experimentation, and naturalistic interpretation. EAB on the other
hand may only be regarded as a subdomain of such a naturalistic
system of psychology. The record of EAB indicates that the
movement found considerable inspiration in the work of Pavlov and
other workers in animal conditioning.

Scope. Whereas interbehavioral psychology takes for its province the

inquiry into the nature of all psychological events including human as
well as nonhuman interbehavior such as perceiving, remembering,
feeling, reasoning, and so on, EAB has been on the whole restricted to
the study of nonhuman organisms which have lent themselves to the
various conditioning techniques. As a distinctive movement in
psychology EAB is fairly well confined to learning or behavior
modification. When EAB concerns itself with human behavior it gears
such events to a conditioning model.

Operational Principles. It is the most salient principle of EAB that

organisms perform interactions with stimulus objects primarily on the
basis of rewards called reinforcement. In general, organisms are
presumed to interact with their surroundings on the basis of powers
resident in the environment. The relevant formula is
R=f(S)
.

This involves an unfortunate assumption concerning the causation

principle. Neither human nor animal behavior may be interpreted as
causes or elicited by stimulus objects as represented by the symbol,

R<--S

or are simply emitted as per the symbol,

R-->S
The symbol for the EAB operational assumption is derived from the
contrivances of animal control in experimental learning studies.

The operational principles of interbehavioral psychology are founded

upon the postulation that scientific descriptions and interpretations
follow from observations made upon interbehavior in free as well as
constrained situations. Accordingly, it is not proper to reduce all the
various behavioral propositions to an a priori formula even when it fits
constrained laboratory situations. In sum, descriptions and
interpretations are mainfold when derived from actual confronted
events.

Organismic Factors in Psychological Events. As a final suggestion

concerning the relationship between interbehavioral psychology and
EAB we compare the views of each relative to the organisms that
participate in psychological interbehavior.

Since the interbehavioral psychologist regards psychological events as

evolved from bioecological events he takes seriously into account the
findings of biological science relative to the positive or negative
influences of the biological factors that participate in psychological
fields. The interbehavioral psychologist recommends an effective
orientation with respect to the morphology, physiology, genetics,
biochemistry, and ecology of organisms. Acquaintance is imperative
with the various biological systems whether muscular, glandular,
neural, supportive, or connective.

By comparison EAB tends to concern itself primarily with the

abstracted learning relation and the involved constraints. In
consequence, EAB when considered as a general psychological
movement is restricted and handicapped. Specifically, it disdains to
consider all of the numerous informal contacts of organisms with
stimulus objects and conditions, the sources of most of the behavioral
repertoire of psychological organisms. No less remiss is EAB in
exploring the important domain of species-specific activities which
can cast much light upon naturalistic psychology.

Conclusion
While considering the relationship of interbehavioral psychology and
EAB the question arises as to how one envisages the latter. If one
regards it as a unique specialized movement within the general field of
psychology one may well assign it an important place in the
naturalistic science of interbehavioral psychology. This is not to
overlook its historical connections with the physiologically based
conditioning movement. Such an assignment is made with the clear
view that as an affiliate of Behaviorism its naturalistic aspect signifies
only that the behavior of organisms can be studied without resort to
mentals of any kind. It is of course a great merit thus to be detached
from introspective mentality.

But when EAB is envisaged as a general system of psychology one

must stress the point that there are important departures from
interbehavioral psychology. Such differences reach back to basic
postulation. Interbehavioral psychology does not merely pass by and
avoid transcendental entities but rather fortified by a study of
institutional and historical origins realizes that psychic processes of
every variety are palpable inventions of persons influenced by
historically adverse life conditions, and thus are alien to scientific
work. Since psychological science has no need to shape its work with
respect to nonexisting mind-body or brain-psyche problems all
observations and interpretations are directly and exclusively derived
from encounters with organism-stimulus object interactions.

An incidental difference between interbehavioral psychology concerns

the question of control vis-à-vis understanding. Whereas EAB stresses
control à outrance making it a principle of operation and
interpretation, interbehavioral psychology leans toward understanding
as a value in itself and as an essential propadeutic to all significant
control.