Freedom, Unfreedom and Skinner's Hobbes

In an array of writings stretching over the better part of two decades, Quentin Skinner has repeatedly challenged the modern conception of negative liberty developed by Isaiah Berlin and many other theorists. He has sought to draw attention to some once vibrant but now largely peripheral traditions of thought—especially the civic-republican or neo-Roman tradition—in order to highlight what he sees as the limitedness and inadequacies of the currently dominant ways of thinking about freedom. The present essay will endeavor to defend one important aspect of the modern understanding of negative liberty against Skinner's strictures, and will challenge Skinner's reading of Thomas Hobbes.     

Sources for Skinner's pragmatic selectionism in 1945

Skinner's pragmatic selectionism shows up strongly in his 1945 publication, "The Operational Analysis of Psychological Terms," in which he introduced a probabilistic three-term contingency for verbal behavior. This probabilism was accompanied by an expanded contextualism and an increased emphasis on consequences with a clear alignment to pragmatism. In total, these changes represent Skinner's most striking shift from mechanistic and necessitarian values to pragmatic selectionism, and these changes may be indebted more to the conceptual contributions of others than Skinner acknowledged. Before 1945, Skinner made at least some positive associations with the views of Watson, Russell, and Carnap. From 1945 and afterwards, he strongly disassociated his views on verbal behavior from theirs. Before 1945, Skinner did not associate his views with those of Darwin or Peirce. After 1945, he strongly associated his views with those of Darwin and Peirce (in one published interview). No sources for his pragmatic selectionism, however, were referred to in 1945.     

Skinner's verbal behavior, Chomsky's review, and mentalism.

Skinner's Verbal Behavior (1957) is a comprehensive treatise that deals with most aspects of verbal behavior. However, its treatment of the learning of grammatical behavior has been challenged repeatedly (e.g., Chomsky, 1959). The present paper will attempt to show that the learning of grammar and syntax can be dealt with adequately within a behavior-analytic framework. There is no need to adopt mentalist (or cognitivist) positions or to add mentalist elements to behaviorist theories.     

Applying Skinner's analysis of verbal behavior to persons with dementia

Skinner's 1957 analysis of verbal behavior has demonstrated a fair amount of utility to teach language to children with autism and other various disorders. However, the learning of language can be forgotten, as is the case for many elderly suffering from dementia or other degenerative diseases. It appears possible that Skinner's operants may facilitate not only acquisition of language but also the ability to recall items or objects that may have appeared to be “forgotten.” The present study examined the utility of having a series of adults in long-term care emit tacts, echoics, or intraverbals upon presentation of various visual stimuli. Compared to a no-verbal response condition, it appears that the incorporation of Skinner's verbal operants can in fact improve recall for this population. Implications for the retraining of lost language are presented.     

Citation Analysis of Skinner's Verbal Behavior: 1984-2004

The present study undertook an updated citation analysis of Skinner's (1957)Verbal Behavior. All articles that cited Verbal Behavior between 1984 and 2004 were recorded and content analyzed into one of five categories; four empirical and one nonempirical. Of the empirical categories, studies that employed a verbal operant from Skinner's analysis were assigned to either basic, applied, or observational categories. Empirical studies that did not employ a verbal operant were categorized as other-empirical. The total number of citations remained stable across the review period and averaged just over 52 per year. Of these, 80% were from nonempirical articles, 13.7% were from other-empirical articles, 4% were from applied articles, 1.4% were from basic articles, and 0.9% were from observational articles. An "obliteration" analysis was also conducted to identify articles that employed Skinner's verbal operant terms but did not cite Verbal Behavior. This analysis identified 44 additional articles, suggesting that a degree of obliteration had occurred in the half century since the publication of Verbal Behavior. In particular, the analysis suggests that the verbal operant of manding has sufficient presence in the applied empirical literature to render citation of Verbal Behavior redundant. Overall, Verbal Behavior continues to make an important contribution to the psychological literature.     

Limitations of Skinner's concept of an 'operant': A theoretical note

It is argued that even if an operant can be defined formally as the "interrelationships among S^D , R , and S ^rein", specific operants require delimitations of emitted behaviour and stimuli in terms of specific sets of contingencies of reinforcement. It is argued that the class membership of operant responses can be determined neither by reference to S^D , response topography, S^R , nor the supposed interrelationships among these, the contingencies of reinforcement. Functional analysis seems to require knowledge rejected by radical behaviourists. It is argued that operant behaviouristic analyses of human behaviour presuppose a common-sense understanding of actions, which–until explicated and shown to be reducible to a technichal behavioural language–must be taken as the point of departure in these analyses.     

Relational frame theory and Skinner's Verbal Behavior: A possible synthesis

The current article suggests a possible synthesis of Skinner's (1957) treatment of verbal behavior with the more recent behavioral interpretation of language known as relational frame theory. The rationale for attempting to combine these two approaches is first outlined. Subsequently, each of the verbal operants described by Skinner is examined and subjected to a relational frame analysis. In each case, two types of operants are identified; one based on direct contingencies of reinforcement and the other based on arbitrarily applicable relational responding. The latter operants are labeled verbal because they can be distinguished from other forms of social behavior, and they appear to possess the symbolic or referential qualities often ascribed to human language. By applying relational frame theory to Skinner's verbal operants, we aim to contribute towards the development of a modern behavior-analytic research agenda in human language and cognition.     

Review of B. F. Skinner's The Behavior of Organisms

As I reread my review nearly 50 years later, I think of the circumstances. I had heard a paper by Fred at the Ithaca meeting of the APA in 1932, and recall the praise by Edna Heidbreder, who was sitting next to me, whose remark was that “He has a clean mind.” The year before his book appeared, I had already cited eight of his published papers in a review of the conditioned response in relation to conventional learning experiments that appeared in the Psychological Bulletin (1937, 34, 61–102). It may be because of that the editor sent me Fred's book to review.

When I received the copy of his new book to review, I read it carefully, and soon reported on it orally before Lewis Terman's weekly seminar to get comments and questions before revising my review. I was pleased by Terman's excitement over the originality of Fred's approach.