The fans’ beliefs

O’Brien maintains that the behavior of football fans should be analyzed not merely in terms of individual behavior but also in terms of group dynamics. He found in the Milltown Supporters Club several such groups.     

A Functional Analysis of Psychological Terms Redux

In his seminal paper, “An Operational Analysis of Psychological Terms,” Skinner (1945) offered the revolutionary suggestion that, rather than endlessly debating the meanings of psychological terms, psychologists should analyze the variables that control their occurrence as verbal behavior. Skinner''s suggestion reflected the essence of his 1957 book, Verbal Behavior, wherein he argued that the behaviors of which language is composed (i.e., speaking and listening) are controlled by variables found in the social environment (which he called the verbal community), and that analyzing those variables would lead to an understanding of the behaviors. Although Skinner formally introduced his radical approach to language in 1945, it has yet to be fully realized. The result is that psychologists, including behavior analysts, still debate the definitions of terms. In the present paper, I review Skinner''s functional approach to language and describe ways in which behavior analysts have already applied it to traditional psychological terms. I conclude by looking at other current terms in behavior analysis that engender some confusion and encourage behavior analysts to apply a functional analytic approach to their own verbal behavior.     

Evaluative verbalization and delay maintenance behavior in children

An experiment is presented which examined the influence of verbalizations on children's tendencies to postpone immediate gratification in terms of increased delayed reward. Children's verbalizations were varied in terms of their evaluative valence and whether they focused upon the reward itself or the delay task. During a delay task children in experimental groups periodically verbalized evaluative statements that were either positive (I like …) or negative (I don't like …) and which focused upon either the reward itself (… the tokens) or the delay behavior (… to wait). Children who focused on reward, under conditions of either positive or negative evaluation, postponed immediate gratification less than control subjects who made no verbalization. Children who evaluated delay behavior positively postponed immediate gratification longer than silent subjects, though children who negatively evaluated delay behavior did not differ from subjects who did not verbalize. The results are interpreted in terms of the influence of evaluative valence and focus as parameters of plans for delay behavior.     

Perceived similarity, proactive adjustment, and organizational socialization

The present study explores how perceived demographic and attitudinal similarity can influence proactive behavior among organizational newcomers. We propose that newcomers who perceive themselves as similar to their co-workers will be more willing to seek new information or build relationships, which in turn will lead to better long-term adjustment. Results from a three-wave field investigation of newcomer proactive behavior show that newcomer perceptions of surface-level similarity to the rest of the work group in education and gender increased proactive adjustment behavior. Contrary to our expectations, perceived similarity in terms of age decreased proactive adjustment behavior—in other words, newcomers who were significantly different from their co-workers in age engaged in more proactive adjustment behaviors. Deep-level similarity in terms of work style was associated with higher levels of role clarity, but this relationship was not mediated by proactive adjustment behavior.     

Some comments on the distinction between intention and intentionality

The topic of intention has recently received attention from behavior analysts (Hineline, 2003; Neuman, 2004). From a behavior-analytic perspective, it is important to identify the circumstances in which people utter such terms, and to identify the potential circumstances that maintain such utterances. It follows that from a behavior-analytic perspective, the focus is primarily on those who observe behavior and attribute intentions to that behavior. However, there has not been a distinction between intention and intentionality. The current analysis stresses the distinction between the two terms, both from a traditional point of view (psychologist and layperson) and from a behavior-analytic point of view. From a behavior analyst's perspective, the distinction is important because observers may be responding to distinct functional relations when they attribute intention or intentionality to behavior.     

The distinction between positive and negative reinforcement: use with care

It is customary in behavior analysis to distinguish between positive and negative reinforcement in terms of whether the reinforcing event involves onset or offset of a stimulus. In a previous article (Baron & Galizio, 2005), we concluded that a distinction of these terms is not only ambiguous but has little if any functional significance. Here, we respond to commentaries by a group of distinguished behavior analysts about the issues we raised. Although several of the commentators argued for preservation of the distinction, we remain unconvinced that its benefits outweigh its weaknesses. Because this distinction is so deeply embedded in the language of behavior analysis, we hardly expect that it will be abandoned. However, we hope that the terms positive and negative reinforcement will be used with circumspection and with full knowledge of the confusion they can engender.     

Development in understanding the relation of others' behavior to own behavior

120 Ss from six age groups (range 7–22 years) were tested for their understanding that others' responses were related to a preceding behavior in Ss. The understanding was tested after experimental interaction episodes with Ss as participants. The results indicated the following development sequence: 7–9 year old persons relate others' response to Ss' behavior in situational terms, 11–13 year old persons relate others' response to others' perceptiodcognition of Ss' behavior, and older persons are able to relate others' behavior simultaneously to Ss' behavior and to dispositional properties in the others.     

Is talking to yourself thinking?

The question whether talking to yourself is thinking is considered from two viewpoints: radical behaviorism and teleological behaviorism. For radical behaviorism, following Skinner (1945), mental events such as ‘thinking’ may be explained in terms of private behavior occurring within the body, ordinarily unobservable by other people; thus, radical behaviorism may identify talking to yourself with thinking. However, to be consistent with its basic principles, radical behaviorism must hold that private behavior, hence thinking, is identical with covert muscular, speech movements (rather than proprioception of those movements). For teleological behaviorism, following Skinner (1938), all mental terms, including ‘thinking,’ stand for abstract, temporally extended patterns of overt behavior. Thus, for teleological behaviorism, talking to yourself, covert by definition, cannot be thinking.     

Bullying as strategic behavior: relations with desired and acquired dominance in the peer group

To examine whether bullying is strategic behavior aimed at obtaining or maintaining social dominance, 1129 9- to 12-year-old Dutch children were classified in terms of their role in bullying and in terms of their use of dominance oriented coercive and prosocial social strategies. Multi-informant measures of participants’ acquired and desired social dominance were also included. Unlike non-bullying children, children contributing to bullying often were bistrategics in that they used both coercive and prosocial strategies and they also were socially dominant. Ringleader bullies also expressed a higher desire to be dominant. Among non-bullying children, those who tended to help victims were relatively socially dominant but victims and outsiders were not. Generally, the data supported the claim that bullying is dominance-oriented strategic behavior, which suggests that intervention strategies are more likely to be successful when they take the functional aspects of bullying behavior into account.     

How do Japanese mothers treat children''s negativism

This study examined the thinking of Japanese mothers (N = 95) concerning the negative and self-assertive behavior of 2;5 and 3;5 year old children. A short structured interview was conducted with middle class mothers to (1) assertain their ideas about the reasons for and the development of negativism and self-assertion, and (2) clarify how mothers respond to such behavior. The results made it clear such childrearing issues as autonomy, negativism, self-assertion, and indeed ego development have a different meaning in the Japanese cultural context than in the Western context from which these psychological terms have been derived. Mothers appeared to be in conflict because they are told to accept negativism and noncompliance as normal and necessary developmentally, even though noncompliant and self-assertive behavior seem to be unacceptable behavior after early Japanese childhood. The results are discussed in terms of implications for childrearing and socialization models, and indicate that traditional Western theories of individuation and autonomy cannot be simply transplanted into the developmental study of Japanese children.