The Psychological Record, 1975, 25, 139-145.

COMMENTS AND QUERIES

ANTIBEHAVIORISM: COUNTERREVOLUTION OR
SEMANTIC CONFUSION?

Account is taken of some recent writings by workers in the field of

animal experimentation who claim to be attacking behaviorism in
psychology. However, an examination of such writings reveals only the
great confusion of equating behaviorism with operant conditioning. The
evidence adduced to support this astounding attack on behaviorism merely
minimizes the apparent domination of learning studies by the exclusory
theory of operant conditioning.

In the book review section of the 1974 volume of the Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Beha vior Barry Schwartz (1974) begins
his review of Seligman and Hager's volume entitled Biological
Boundaries of Learning (1972) with the truistic declaration that
The history of behaviorism has been marked by numerous challenges,
both from within psychology and without.

Although the statement quoted is reminiscent of the early-on

attacks that have been made on behaviorism, its gravamen bears
hea vily upon the current twin challenge to behaviorism by animal
learning psychologists from within the citadel and by ethologists from
without the realm of psychology.
Surely there is here a situation of the greatest moment relative to
the welfare of the science of psychology. If it be confirmed that there
actually exists an active junta of antibehaviorists, that signifies a
threat to the behavioristic revolution in psychology that provided the
long-needed breakthrough toward scientific status. On the other hand,
if the psychologists and ethologists are simply joined in rebellion
against the views of the individuals who march under the banner of
operant conditioning, then clearly we are not confronted with a
counterrevolution against the behavioristic revolution, but with only
an obnoxious semantic confusion of "behaviorism" with "operant
conditioning"; that is only a tempest in a teacup. Whichever it is,
however, there is a clear demand for analysis and clarification of the
situation.

CURRENT ANTIBEHAVIORISM ANALYZED

What then does an analysis of the current attack upon be-

haviorism reveal? We consider first the criticism by ethologists of
the so-called behavioristic theory of learning: that is, the mode of
investiga tion of the origins of adaptive behavior. In particular,
ethologists accuse operant experimenters of employing artificial
techniques that do not result in the discovery of how organisms
actually develop behavior. They object to the exclusion of field studies
as well as to the use of constraining apparatus and conditions of
140 COMMENTS AND QUERIES

laboratory situations. Generally, they are also inclined toward the

belief in the nativity of animal behavior instead of the immediate
acquisition of behavior through the influence of rewards. Again,
ethologists question the assumption of general laws of learning,
leaning more toward the opinion that regard must be had for specific
organismic structures that control the particularities of behavior in
various types of organisms.
Turning to the revolt of psychologists against behaviorism (read
operant conditioning), we find that although even in the early stages in
the career of operant conditioning the fallibility of the respondent and
the operant distinction was sensed, now extremely damaging attacks
are being made upon the basic tenets of the entire operant conditioning
movement. Many former sympathizers are agreed (Schoenfeld &
Cole, 1972, p. 180) that a given stimulus (object), such as food, has
both operant and respondent effects. Still more crushing attacks are
being made on operant-learning theory because of numerous recent
researches which contravene the central notion of operantism,
namely, the mighty role of reinforcement in the development and
performance of behavior . Not only maya reinforcer of an operant be
an unconditioned stimulus for a respondent, but great criticism is
made of the general notion of reinforcement on the basis of various
investiga tions.
Prominent among those researches are the findings that the
temporal relation between reinforcer and the response-stimulus
effect is far different from the early asserted rule of contiguous
association (Revusky & Garcia, 1970); then there is the phenomenon of
auto-shaping or sign-tracking (Brown & Jenkins, 1968; Jenkins, 1974),
which nullified the importance of reinforcement entirely. These are
only samples from the growing literature. 1

IS THE CONDEMNATION OF OPERANTISM

A BLOW TO BEHAVIORISM?

Now the important question arises whether the partially or

wholly justified disapproval of the operant movement constitutes an
attack on behaviorism. Assuredly the answer is no, but what is the
basis for this confusion? Firstand foremost is the perversion of the
behavioristic movement. Condemnatory it is to identify the important
and enriching behavioristic movement with an arbitrary and limited
technique such as operant conditioning. It is an inexcusable myopia
not to see that behaviorism constitutes an heroic and successful
attempt to extrude from psychology the spiritism and mentalism
which has polluted the diSCipline since the beginning of the present
chronological era. How can one equate so tremendous a phase of
scientific and general culture with an alleged extension of the
conditioning technique? Furthermore, who can fail to realize that the
1Much of this material has been brought together in a number of collections, for example,
Hinde, R. A., & Stevenson-Hinde, J., (Eds.), Constraints on Learning (1973); Liebermann, D.
A., Learning and the Control of Behavior (1974); Seligman, M. E. P., & Hagar, J. L.,
Biological Boundaries of Learning (1972).
 COMMENTS AND QUERIES 141

advent of behavioristic postulation amply signifies that psychology

has gradually been crossing the threshold of science. Nothing is more
certain than that the entire scientific enterprise consists of the
investigation of the behavior of things and events in the specific fields
which encompass them, on the basis of particular conditions.

BEHAVIORISM IS SCIENCE

What is physics but the study of the behavior of objects, particles,

radiations of a gross or subtle type? What is chemistry but the
investigation of elements as they interact in and with other elements,
atoms, molecules, and compounds? What is biology other than the
pursuit of knowledge of how cells, tissues, organs, and organisms
perform in interbehavior with ambient objects and conditions? It is
hardly necessary to remind psychologists that their obvious data
consist of interactions of organisms with other organisms, things,
and conditions in ways acquired as adjustments during the various
stages of growth, maintenance, survival, and decline. No declarations
of identification can alter the fact that operant conditioning can only
qualify as the occupant of a corner of a particular type of investigation
or behaviorism. For a clear vision of science, it is essential to
observe the restraints, reductions, and selections research in-
troduces into the study of psychological or any other class of events.

IS ANTIBEHAVIORISM REVERSIONARY MENTALISM?

That is not an idle question in the face of the spreading absorption

by psychologists of cognitive ideas which seldom represent spatio-
temporal performances. On the whole, however, it appears unwise to
conclude that the current dissatisfaction with and attack upon
"behaviorism" is a signal to return to mentalism instead of just the
sign of a growing appreciation of the shortcomings of the operant
movement. At best, operantism consists mainly in a specialized form
of animal learning study. Whatever be the merits or demerits of the
operant movement, it should be clear that it does not qualify as the
entirety of behavioristic psychology. Deprecation of operant
conditioning need not be more than a rejection of the exclusively
reinforcement descriptions and interpretations of psychological
events, because such events are too complicated for such simplis-
tic treatment. Certainly, psychological interbehavior with en-
vironmental objects and conditions cannot be constricted into the
narrow confines of conditioned reflexes. Despite this criticism,
operant theory and practice may still fit into behavioristic or
scientific psychology as one local enclave.

OPERANT ANALYSIS A PHASE OF BEHAVIORISM

One of the strongest bits of evidence of the disparity between

operant processes and psychological behavioristics is the limited
142 COMMENTS AND QUERIES

foundation upon which operantism was erected. That foundation is the

conditioning of Pa vlov. The superstructure implied that all behavior,
including thinking, speaking, feeling, and all other complex activi ties,
is simply conditioned action based on th~ sovereign principle of
rewards. It is well to note that the fault of operantism lies precisely in
the arbitrary expansion of an excellent behavioral procedure into a
psychological system.
Great merit accrues to Pavlovian conditioning. It showed the way
to the modification of behavior by observable means instead of
metaphysical processes. However, the inflation of the conditioning
process into an explanatory principle to account for the most
complicated interactions of persons in human situations constitutes a
violent tra vesty of scientific thinking. The conclusion is inevitable.
Insofar as operantism is the investigation of primarily animal
behavior, it constitutes a definite department of behavioristic
psychology, but in no sense the whole of it.

LEARNOLOGY NOT ALL OF PSYCHOLOGY

The history of American psychology of the 20th century is replete
with the records of learning study. Quite in contrast with earlier days,
the great prosperity of learning research appeared to many as the
neglect of cognitive behavior which was traditionally treated as
entirely mentalistic by comparison with animal behavior study, which
did not appear to require any commitment to consciousness or any
mental state or function. So fruitful did animal behavior study become
that it appeared to many psychologists as the whole of pSYChology.
Indeed, workers in the field of sensory or perceiving behavior have
thought they were regarded as unwanted encroachers upon psy-
chological territory.
While the devotees of conditioning and learning might be neutral
with respect to some overweening philosophy, actually it has
appeared possible for students of animal learning to incorporate
either mentalistic or antimentalistic axioms in their total psy-
chological systems. But there has never been any warrant in fact
to consider learning study as anything more than a part of the general
psychological curriculum.

CLARIFYING ISSUES IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE

A critical observer of the psychological scene need not deplore
the oppositions displayed by scientific workers. It is assumed of
course that disagreements are the results of attempts to solve
problems and clarify issues, and not upon the urge of self-
aggrandisement. Such competition it is that makes for progress in any
behavioral enterprise. As long as differences of viewpoint center
around the interpretation of data, the possibility of scientific
progression exists. We conclude these comments by the
consideration of some issues that may help to clear up some
antibeha vioristic confusions.
 COMMENTS AND QUERIES 143

The Natural and the A rtijicial in Psychology

With reference to the ethological attack upon operantism, the
following may be observed. Laboratory and experimental methods of
investigation approach the ideals of the pursuit of knowledge. Such
methods tend toward control as a basis for precision and
quantification. But since the goal of investigation is to ascertain the
beha vior of particular things, the risk of distorting them, is always
present, or overemphasizing the particular conditions of observation
and the effectiveness of the instruments used. Again, the question
must be faced whether the laboratory and experimental techniques
are adequate and suitable for the behavior studied, considering the
scientific end in view. It follows then that adequate respect must be
accorded to the coordinate method of field study. Otherwise, an
improper absolutistic constraint is placed upon knowledge and
research. Psychologists who disdain field study reduce their
discipline to the simple and the trivial, losing sight of the great range
and intricacy of actual psychological adjustments.
Biological and Cultural Potentialities in Psychology
The complaints of both ethologists and psychologists against the
operant movement and the consequent confusion of operantism with
behaviorism centers around the lack of recognition of the biological
and cultural influences upon the origin and performance of behavior.
It is alleged that the behaviorists (read operant conditioners) limit the
development and performance of acts exclusively to immediate and
contiguous reinforcement in disregard of the influence of the
biological traits of organisms. Yet it is obvious that there are great
potentialities for developing and performing beha vior in the evolution
of varying species. Surely this discordancy hinges upon a judicious
appreciation of the relationship between the biological and psy-
chological aspects of behavior.
Biological influences upon psychological behavior constitute the
actualization of potentialities resident in the morphology and
ecological evolution of organisms. These factors when actualized in
concrete behavior participa te in the behavioral situation as abilities
and limitations of action. Species differences are those observed in
various organisms even the most closely related. But biological
boundaries are in no sense determiners. Accordingly, no limits must
be,placed upon the zeal for searching out the precise conditions of
behavior in observed fields of action. In both human and nonhuman
behavioral studies the distinction must be observed between
developing behavioral adjustments in free contacts with things and the
imposition of behavior patterns by the rigid control of conditions.
At this point it is also important to observe the distinction
between potentialities and determiners. Potentialities point to past
interactions which ha ve resulted in certain products now operating in
relevant situations. The evolution of varieties and species of
organisms constitutes boundaries and preparations for further
interactions and further developments. Given the species, the
emphasis is on constellations of actual things and processes.
144 COMMENTS AND QUERIES

Determiners are constructions built out of assumed powers, but not

observable processes.
Furthermore, in equal measure scientific psychology is obliged
to take account of cultural circumstances as well as biological ones.
Though the former may be ignored in the study of subhuman animal
behavior, it may never be in the case of the relatively more intricate
human situations.

ANTIBEHA VIORISM ONLY SEMANTIC CONFUSION

Our analysis of the current antibehavioristic episode indicates

clearly that it is not behaviorism as scientific psychology that is being
objected to but only the principles or rules of a particular brand of
learnology. What needs explanation is how such a semantic confusion
is possible. As usual in such circumstances, there are many factors
that should be considered.
In the first place, there is the explosive growth of interest and
activity in the conditioning process of animal behavior. The result
was the build-up of an institution which is identifiable as the
learnological movement. Within this situation there were naturally
many potentialities for the organization of groups clustering around
specialized data and particular theoretical pronouncements. As it
happened, the operant group claimed that they had founded a new
science by the name of behaviorism. Now that the specific tenets of the
operant system have been increasingly invalidated, it is said by
antioperants that behaviorism is outdated and should be discarded. Is
it not clearly the fact that what is happening is the confounding of the
word referring to scientific achievements in psychology with the word
for a particular set of doctrines and assertions?
OBSERVER

REFERENCES

BROWN, P. L., & JENKINS, H. M. 1968. Auto-shaping of the pigeon's key-peck. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 11, 1-S.
HINDE, R. A., & STEVENSON-HINDE, J. (Eds.) 1973. Constraints on learning. New York:
Academic Press.
JENKINS, H. M. 1974. Behavior theory today: A return to fundamentals. First Mexican
Conference on the Analysis of Behavior, Xalapa, Veracruz.
LIEBERMAN, D. A.1974. Learningandthecontrolofbehavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.
REVUSKY, S., & GARCIA, J. 1970. Learned associations over long delays. In G. H. Bower
(Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation. New York: Academic Press.
SCHOENFELD, W. N., & COLE, B. K.1972. Stimulus schedules: The t-Tsystems. New York:
Harper & Row.
SCHWARTZ, B. 1974. On going back to nature: A review of Seligman and Hager's biological
boundaries of learning. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21,
183-198.
SELIGMAN, M. E. P., & HAGAR, J. L. 1972. Biological boundaries of learning. New York:
Appleton -Century -C rofts.