How research in behavioral pharmacology informs behavioral science

Behavioral pharmacology is a maturing science that has made significant contributions to the study of drug effects on behavior, especially in the domain of drug-behavior interactions. Less appreciated is that research in behavioral pharmacology can have, and has had, implications for the experimental analysis of behavior, especially its conceptualizations and theory. In this article, I outline three general strategies in behavioral pharmacology research that have been employed to increase understanding of behavioral processes. Examples are provided of the general characteristics of the strategies and of implications of previous research for behavior theory. Behavior analysis will advance as its theories are challenged.     

Rat AA-26: behavioral pharmacology science pioneer.

Rat AA-26, despite 1950s "state of the art," nonetheless generated the first set of behavioral pharmacology cumulative records to appear in the weekly journal Science, the century-old publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The laboratory exploits of this dedicated animal called early attention to the methodological fruits of a marriage between pharmacology and the experimental analysis of behavior.     

The relations between neuroscience and human behavioral science.

Neuroscience seeks to understand how the human brain, perhaps the most complex electrochemical machine in the universe, works, in terms of molecules, membranes, cells and cell assemblies, development, plasticity, learning, memory, cognition, and behavior. The human behavioral sciences, in particular psychiatry and clinical psychology, deal with disorders of human behavior and mentation. The gap between neuroscience and the human behavioral sciences is still large. However, some major advances in neuroscience over the last two decades have diminished the span. This article reviews the major advances of neuroscience in six areas with relevance to the behavioral sciences: (a) evolution of the nervous system; (b) visualizing activity in the human brain; (c) plasticity of the cerebral cortex; (d) receptors, ion channels, and second/third messengers; (e) molecular genetic approaches; and (f) understanding integrative systems with networks and circadian clocks as examples.     

Arthur F. Bentley and the foundations of behavioral science

Arthur F. Bentley's early work on the foundations of behavioral science has been neglected by students of the history and philosophy of social science. Bentley believed that the development of behavioral science required extensive reflection on and criticism of the categorial presuppositions of both everyday and scientific knowledge. This paper is concerned with Bentley's criticism of psychological explanation, his theory of observation, and the basic concepts of his behavioral science.     

Methodological observations on applied behavioral science

Policy makers and administrators have become frustrated with single-subject designs because these designs appear unable, at first blush, to provide them with essential information that they can use in planning or change at the organizational or institutional level of management. Practitioners have become frustrated with prior exclusive reliance on traditional group experimental designs because they fail to provide useful information for conducting therapy or delivering services. The following article by Professor Gingerich makes a large and important contribution toward mitigating these two apparently divergent needs. Gingerich describes how meta-analysis can provide useful information for managers through aggregations of data obtained from single-subject, time-series designs. The article also discusses the use of meta-analysis of time-series data as a basis for improving the quality of scientific investigations.     

Computerized process control in behavioral science research

A general approach to the design and development of real-time operating systems is discussed. Operating system design for small to medium scale laboratory computers is described at a moderately elementary level. Analysis of system design as a supervisory control hierarchy is presented in an attempt to bridge the gap between an elementary general understanding of computer operation and the more sophisticated understanding assumed by the writers of most computer systems operator’s manuals. PROSS, a programming language developed at Indiana University, is presented as an example of the highest level of supervisory control.     

B. F. Skinner and G. H. Mead: on biological science and social science.

Skinner's contributions to psychology provide a unique bridge between psychology conceptualized as a biological science and psychology conceptualized as a social science. Skinner focused on behavior as a naturally occurring biological phenomenon of interest in its own right, functionally related to surrounding events and, in particular (like phylogenesis), subject to selection by its consequences. This essentially biological orientation was further enhanced by Skinner's emphasis on the empirical foundations provided by laboratory-based experimental analyses of behavior, often with nonhuman subjects. Skinner's theoretical writings, however, also have affinity with the traditions of constructionist social science. The verbal behavior of humans is said to be subject, like other behavior, to functional analyses in terms of its environment, in this case its social context. Verbal behavior in turn makes it possible for us to relate to private events, a process that ultimately allows for the development of consciousness, which is thus said to be a social product. Such ideas make contact with aspects of G. H. Mead's social behaviorism and, perhaps of more contemporary impact in psychology, L. Vygotsky's general genetic law of cultural development. Failure to articulate both the biological and the social science aspects of Skinner's theoretical approach to psychology does a disservice to his unique contribution to a discipline that remains fragmented between two intellectual traditions.     

Behavioral science integration: A practical framework of multi-level converging evidence for behavioral science theories

Several frameworks exist to help science in organizing known information, connecting previously disparate phenomena, promoting understanding, and identifying gaps in knowledge. This paper integrates previous frameworks that have been used in the behavioral sciences to produce a more comprehensive, specific, and complete framework, consonant with the process of scientific discovery as based on multiple, independent, and converging lines of evidence. This multi-level convergence framework is designed specifically for the analysis and understanding of human cognitive/behavioral traits, in contrast to more general frameworks that are designed to be applied relatively widely (such as across all information processing systems or across all biological organisms). This integrated framework overcomes gaps in prior frameworks, provides a more complete picture of the interrelationships between various aspects of the behavioral sciences, and can aid in evaluating theories, both for comparison and identifying gaps in evidentiary support.     

Attitudes,leprechauns and neutrinos: The ontology of behavioral science

Conclusion Although the historical dispute between introspective psychology and ontological behaviorism encourages the belief that attitudes do not exist, this belief is misguided. Even the Hacking test, suggested by someone with grave doubts about behavioral science, supports the claim that attitudes are just as real as neutrinos. Nevertheless, the progress of a science of attitudes may be severely limited by the influence of exogenous factors, factors including normative beliefs about how we should treat the people to whom attitudes are attributed. In so far as these beliefs prevent scientists from experimenting on people and their institutions, particle physics has resources unavailable to survey research. Thus a serious examination of behavioral science leads to some surprising conclusions as to which sciences are the hard ones and which ones are simply easier.Thanks are due to a number of people, particularly to Ted Jelen for invaluable advice and encouragement and editorial assistance and to Paul Teller, Dorothy Grover and my colleagues in the Indiana Philosophical Association for helpful and insightful comments. Research for this paper was supported by Faculty Development of DePauw University and the Humanities Division of Illinois Benedictine College.