See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/47178924

Psychological Behaviorism and Behaviorizing Psychology

Article  in  The Behavior analyst / MABA · April 1994

DOI: 10.1007/BF03392655 · Source: PubMed Central

CITATIONS READS

41 894

1 author:

Arthur W Staats
University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
169 PUBLICATIONS   2,918 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Promulgation of the approach to human behavior and human nature View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Arthur W Staats on 10 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Behavior Analyst 1994, 17, 93-114 No. 1 (Spring)

Psychological Behaviorism and Behaviorizing Psychology

Arthur W. Staats
University of Hawaii
Paradigmatic or psychological behaviorism (PB), in a four-decade history of development, has been shaped
by its goal, the establishment of a behaviorism that can also serve as the approach in psychology (Watson's
original goal). In the process, PB has become a new generation of behaviorism with abundant heuristic
avenues for development in theory, philosophy, methodology, and research. Psychology has resources,
purview and problem areas, and nascent developments of many kinds, gathered in chaotic diversity,
needing unification (and other things) that cognitivism cannot provide. Behaviorism can, within PB's
multilevel framework for connecting and advancing both psychology and behaviorism.
Key words: psychological behaviorism, multilevel framework theory, three-function learning, basic
behavioral repertoires, cumulative-hierarchical learning, behaviorizing psychology, unified positivism

Many behavior analysts have heard of UNIFIED POSITIVISM

paradigmatic behaviorism (or psycho- To begin, PB's philosophy of science,
logical behaviorism, see Tryon, 1990), PB which is called unified positivism (see
for short. But many know very little about Staats, 1983, 1991b), states that the ex-
it, justified by views that PB differs from tent of the unification of a science is a
(Ulman, 1990) and does not differ from fundamental dimension of its advance-
(Plaud, 1992) Skinner's radical behav- ment. Early in a science there is chaotic
iorism (RB). PB, like all behaviorisms, diversity, endless disagreement, mutual
values any work based on conditioning derogation, and the failure to advance
principles. PB has been part of behavior past basic arguments, producing many
analysis (BA), having contributed fun- disadvantageous by-products. Psychol-
damentally to it, beginning very early, ogy, as a modern disunified science, has a
and having drawn upon it. babble of different theories, research
However, a behaviorism (like Skin- studies, research problems, methods,
ner's) is a broad framework that includes principles, schismatic issues, philoso-
a philosophy of science for the study of phies, and concepts.' As a consequence,
behavior, a methodology, theory, and psychology is devalued in the philosophy
characteristic problems, directions of re- of science as a "would-be [science] dis-
search, empirical findings, as well as an cipline" (Toulmin, 1972, p. 382).
agenda for development. Although all the
behaviorisms share many things, they dif- EFFORTS TOWARD UNIFIED
fer on other important things in these THEORY IN PSYCHOLOGY
categories, as do PB and RB. PB is in-
tended as a third-generation behavior- "The aim of scientific explanation
ism, for use as a general framework, as throughout the ages has been unifica-
are the behaviorisms of Hull (1943), Tol- tion," that is, "the comprehending of a
man (1932) and, especially, Skinner maximum of facts and regularities in
(1938, 1953, 1957, 1959). The present terms of a minimum of theoretical con-
paper describes some of PB's character- cepts and assumptions" (Feigl, 1970, p.
istics, so behavior analysts can see that 12). Although the philosophy of science
the framework is different from RB and lauds unified theory, it does not study
provides various new directions for be- what needs to be known, that is, how dis-
haviorism's development.
' Such dissension also existed among the second-
Correspondence regarding this article and reprint generation behaviorists (e.g., Tolman, Hull, and
requests should be addressed to Arthur W. Staats, Skinner) and continues today with separations
Department of Psychology, University of Hawaii, among behavioral approaches and between organ-
Honolulu, HI 96822. izations such as ABA and AABT.
93
94 ARTHUR W. STAATS
unified sciences generally advance from thus be termed the part-to-whole-rejec-
disunity to unity. tionism method.
Cognitive Psychology Behaviorism and Unification
Psychology's attempts at unification Watson aimed at unification, but not
reflect the absence of the needed guide. unification with psychology. Watson re-
Cognitivism may be used as an example. jected psychology's concepts (mental-
Cognitivism is a loose conceptual frame- ism), methods (introspection), and phi-
work, drawn from the common language. losophy (dualism). With revolutionary
It includes a host of psychological con- fervor, his aim was to bring down tra-
cepts whose common feature is the in- ditional psychology and replace it with
ference of internal processes that alleg- behaviorism. Watson thus generally fol-
edly determine human behavioral lowed the part-to-whole-plus-rejection-
phenomena. This mentalistic framework ism strategy and thereby set the stage for
has been deployed in all of psychology's the uneasy relationship of behaviorism
fields. I have described cognitivism as "a and psychology, which in effect prevent-
conglomeration of many unarticulated ed behaviorism from fulfilling its poten-
knowledge elements... [having] the same tial as the unifying approach of the sci-
tremendous needs for unification that ence.
psychology in general has" (Staats, 199 lb, In the second generation of behavior-
p. 908). The central point here is that ism, there were several different ap-
although cognitivism is not a unified the- proaches. Tolman (1932) sought some
ory, many psychologists think that it is unity with traditional psychology by
and that it can unify psychology (see making psychology's mentalism scientif-
Baars, 1984). This belief exists partly be- ically respectable through the creation of
cause no other approach, including rad- the intervening variable strategy of de-
ical behaviorism, has shown the way. fining cognitive concepts by conditioning
Traditional Grand Theories: studies. He later admitted failure in try-
Part-to- Whole-Rejectionism ing to construct a grand theory (Tolman,
Theory Construction 1959). Hull (1943) became enmeshed in
constructing an axiomatic-mathematic
The various grand theorists in psy- theory, a focus that was an obstacle to
chology did not understand psychology's constructing a grand unified theory. Oth-
special problems of disunity, and this lack ers tried a strategy of eclectically com-
of understanding limited their ability to bining psychoanalytic theory with Hull's
construct unified theories. Traditionally, theory (see Dollard & Miller, 1950), pro-
grand theorists have been specialists in a ducing a nonheuristic incompatibility
particular area of psychology. They ex- rather than a grand unified theory.
trapolated the theory formed in that par- Skinner, in contrast, carried forth the
tial study to all behavior, largely by con- tradition of radical behaviorism in at-
jectural examples, to suggest that they had tempting to establish a very general ap-
a very general theory. Freud studied the proach (see Skinner, 1953, 1957). His
verbalizations of neurotic patients in work, which constitutes a model, in-
psychoanalysis. Piaget (Piaget & Kamil, cludes almost no use of or reference to
1978) based his grand theory on the de- psychology's work. Both Watson and
velopmental study of children's re- Skinner, as well as other behaviorists,
sponses to certain problems. This meth- made an important contribution by ex-
od of theory construction (Staats, 1983) posing the errors in mentalism and in-
is actually the antithesis ofunified theory. trospective methods. Partly because of
Because it does not study the rest of psy- this success, it became customary for
chology (such as behaviorism) and does many behaviorists to exclude psychology
not propose a program to do so, the developments, without systematic con-
method is actually rejectionistic, and may sideration, for a variety of reasons: be-
 PSYCHOLOGICAL BEHAVIORISM 95

cause the developments employ mental- considered. Each phenomenon needed to

istic concepts, do not use a behaviorally be analyzed as behavior, including how
accepted methodology, and the like. that behavior was learned, in very spe-
There is a strong position, also, that it is cific terms, in order to provide implica-
simply more productive to work on tions for empirical study of a strictly be-
something developed in RB than in psy- havioral nature.
chology, so it is unnecessary to study psy- With such strictures, the first works of
chology. The strategy is to develop a sci- PB constituted behavioral analyses of
ence of behavior from within, treating phenomena first studied in psychology.
complex phenomena only when indige- For example, an early PB work accepted
nous developments become available. cognitive studies of human problem
Fraley and Vargas's (1986) behaviorol- solving as an important phenomenon (see
ogy codifies this tradition and its impli- Staats, 1956). The analysis was that hu-
cations, suggesting that behaviorism man problem solving involves the prob-
should separate from psychology. lem-solving objects eliciting (or control-
In these ways, the behaviorisms of the ling) labeling verbal responses, which then
second generation also used the part-to- elicit learned chains of verbal responses,
whole-rejectionism strategy. which in turn elicit the problem-solving
behaviors (Staats, 1963b). This treat-
THE BEHAVIORIZING ment (see also Staats, 1963a) anticipated
PSYCHOLOGY STRATEGY the interest in rule-governed behavior
(Skinner, 1966) and is part of the PB
Overlooked in this strategy is that be- analysis of how verbal behavior affects
haviorists have always made productive other behavior (see also Staats, 1975;
conceptual analyses of findings that orig- Burns & Staats, 1992). As another ex-
inated in traditional psychology, as Wat- ample, traditional psychology treats
son (1930) made analyses of fear, talking, meaning in language and communication
and thinking. Skinner continued this tra- mentalistically. PB's behavior analysis
dition in his Science and human behavior treated the phenomena involved as clas-
(1953) by treating such things as person- sically conditioned responses (see Staats
ality, psychotherapy, and thinking -as & Staats, 1957, 1958; Staats, Staats, &
did others (Hull, 1930). Mostly these Crawford, 1962). A number of studies
analyses were done to show psychology's have used PB's analysis and language
weakness. No one abstracted the impor- conditioning method to change behavior
tant and general principle involved, (e.g., Berkowitz & Knurek, 1969; Early,
namely, that traditional psychology has 1968; Hekmat & Vanian, 1971; Zanna,
incipiently isolated phenomena that with Kiesler, & Pilkonis, 1970). PB very early
behavioral analyses can be valuable to made behavior analyses of purpose,
behaviorism as well as psychology. Quite grammatical rules, the self-concept, in-
opposite to the strategy of working from terests, intelligence, psychopathologies
within, this principle calls for the system- (including developmental disorders),
atic study of psychology's fields. No such values, communication, originality, self-
program was suggested. determination, and many other phenom-
In part because it is a third-generation ena treated in psychology (Staats, 1963b).
behaviorism, one of PB's beginning fea- In addition to guiding PB research,
tures was making behavior analyses of some of the analyses were followed by
behavioral phenomena whose study psy- the research of others. As an example, a
chology had already begun. To be be- PB analysis (see Staats, 1963b, pp. 177-
havioral, several things were necessary. 178) of the mentalistic notion of gram-
Psychology's mentalistic conceptions had matical rules of pluralization explicated
to be rejected. The limitations of the tra- the behavioral mechanisms involved and
ditional observations had to be real- how they are learned. A series of studies
ized -for example, that the environmen- conducted by Guess (1969) and Sailor
tal causes of the behaviors were little (1971) and their associates involved
96 ARTHUR W. STAATS

training retarded children to pluralize ac- nomics, and programmed instruction.

cording to "rule" as specified in the PB Unlike other behaviorisms, PB abstracts
analysis. The behavioral analysis ofother what is involved, and establishes the ba-
language phenomena treated by linguists sis for a different relationship of behav-
(see Staats, 197 lb) also gave rise to study iorism and psychology, along with a new
in that field (see Rondal, 1984). As an- program for conducting interrelated
other example, PB very early behavior- study-called "behaviorizing psycholo-
ally analyzed a traditional description of gy"-as an important part of construct-
the symptom of a schizophrenic patient. ing a general, unified science (Staats,
The analysis indicated how the psychotic 1992a).
symptom was learned and maintained
through therapists' reinforcement, and UNIFIED POSITIVISM TENETS
how it could be changed by extinction AND THE BEHAVIORIZING
and the reinforcement of incompatible PROGRAM
behavior (Staats, 1957). Two years later,
Ayllon and Michael (1959) demonstrated These examples have been given to il-
those principles by manipulating rein- lustrate that psychology has made pre-
forcement variables with psychotic pa- liminary studies of important behavioral
tients. The principles and methods be- phenomena, albeit under the aegis of a
came basic in behavior modification. PB's mentalistic conception that entails vari-
behavior analysis of the economic prin- ous weaknesses. Lacking analysis of its
ciple of supply and demand (Staats, phenomena (behaviors), and how those
1963b, p. 309) provides another exam- behaviors are learned, traditional psy-
ple. This analysis was based on PB's work chology has no way of explaining those
introducing the token-reinforcer system phenomena and, thus, of establishing the
as analogous to money (Staats, 1963b, relationships of the phenomena to each
pp. 442-443). Begun in 1958, with the other. For these reasons, psychology's
use of the system in treating develop- findings remain disparate and unrelated;
mental reading disorders in a public the result is chaotic disunification.
school (see also Staats, Finley, Minke, & Behaviorism, however, has the meth-
Wolf, 1964; Staats, Staats, Schutz, & odological advantage of behavior anal-
Wolf, 1962), the treatment combined be- ysis to indicate learning conditions. Such
havior analysis with traditional reading analysis yields the possibility of control,
materials adapted for the behavioral not just prediction. In addition, however,
methods (see Staats & Butterfield, 1965). it is important to realize what behavior
This development was a foundation for analyses of psychological phenomena can
the study of developmental disorders by contribute in terms of unification. Be-
behavior analysts (see O'Leary & Drab- havior principles are part of a unified set.
man, 1971). In addition to these exam- Whatever is analyzed in terms of those
ples, PB made many other theoretical and principles is placed into a unified frame-
empirical behavior analyses of phenom- work. For example, when attitudes, in-
ena originally studied in psychology (see, terests, values, preferences, and choice
e.g., Staats, 1963b, 1964, 1965, 1968a, behavior are analyzed in terms of con-
1968b, 1971a, 1971b, 1975; Staats & ditioning principles (see Staats, 1963b;
Burns, 1981, 1982; Staats et al., 1964; Staats & Burns, 1982; Staats et al., 1973;
Staats, Gross, Guay, & Carlson, 1973; Staats & Staats, 1958), the phenomena
Staats & Hammond, 1972; Staats & are drawn into a unified theory. Such be-
Staats, 1958). havioral analyses of psychological phe-
There are also many well-known ex- nomena, moreover, are heuristic and
amples, in the various behaviorisms, of suggest new paths of study, as these and
behaviorally analyzing psychology ma- other works show. Psychology needs be-
terials, including classic problems of psy- havioral analyses of its phenomena and
chophysics using nonhuman animal sub- systematization of these analyses into a
jects, the study of choice as an operant, unified theory.
the study of creativity, behavioral eco- Let me at this point introduce several
 PSYCHOLOGICAL BEHAVIORISM 97

tenets of unified positivism's methodol- traditional name of the phenomenon if

ogy of theory construction. One is that it was first studied in psychology-as in
an approach that aims to be general to the PB analyses of attitudes, intelligence,
psychology must consider all the knowl- reading, personality, and the like. There
edge elements produced by the discipline is an important difference here, in meth-
(Staats, 1992a). This may be called the od as well as in theory, between PB and
principle of inclusion. And the fact that Skinner's RB, the latter not generally re-
there is error in an aspect of some work taining psychology's names. For exam-
does not mean that all aspects are in er- ple, Skinner used terms like texting in-
ror. For example, although the concept stead of reading (Skinner, 1957) and
of intelligence may be mentalistic, that abstraction instead of concept formation
does not mean that intelligence tests or (Skinner, 1953), in a manner consistent
the methods of test construction in- with his epistemology (see Moore, 1985).
volved are worthless. Rejection of intel- PB's analyses of psychological phenom-
ligence tests and test-construction meth- ena do not have the goal of showing how
ods requires specific analysis. wrong psychology is, but of performing
This leads to a corollary tenet, the prin- a unification. Some behavior analysts (see
ciple of due process. That is, not every Ulman, 1990) have confused PB's use of
element of knowledge in any science is traditional terms with the use of inter-
true or useful with respect to constructing vening variables or mentalistic concepts.
a general theory. The task, thus, is inclu- But PB's terms are behaviorally defined,
sion of those elements that are true and strictly, closely, specifically (Staats,
useful and rejection of those that are not. 1 992b)-its methodology more stringent
Due process evaluation is necessary be- than in some RB and BA works.
fore an element of knowledge is rejected
(or ignored), just as it is when the element FRAMEWORK THEORY AND PB
is accepted. Frequently, rejection is much
less systematic than acceptance. Many The PB goal is that of constructing a
cognitivists, for example, reject (or ig- behaviorism that will be general to psy-
nore) behavioristic works very generally, chology. But there are too many unre-
assuming because they are behavioristic lated knowledge elements in psychology
they "must be" atomistic, mechanistic, to be encompassed by any one theorist.
antipsychological, and simplistic. On our This was the complexity that forced the
side, many behaviorists reject (or ignore) classic theorists-behavioral or not-to
anything that smacks of mentalism or restrict themselves to a small part of the
does not employ behavioral methods, or science, to cut the task down to size. But
that is part of the vast (and denigrated) that avoids rather than confronts the task.
literature of psychology. In both cases, The PB theory-construction method-
this is not good scientific practice, and it ology-called framework theory -has
prevents construction of a comprehen- been developed to make the task man-
sive approach. PB thus calls for "system- ageable (see Staats, 1981, 1988). This is
atic rejection," a corollary of due process. done, not by rejection without due pro-
Not everything in psychology-prob- cess, but by dealing with psychology's
lems, methods, theories, philosophies, complexity progressively, not all at once.
findings, whatever-will turn out to de- The framework theory methodology in-
serve a scientific investment. Science de- volves constructing a theoretical skele-
mands separating the "wheat" from the ton, not a completed theory. This is done
"chaff," and behaviorism must accept this for each of the major fields. Features
responsibility and show its wares in do- (concepts, principles, findings) in each
ing so. case are included, but not all of them.
Unified positivism states that unifica- Rather, the elements are sampled in a
tion in science is valuable, as basic to systematic way, first dealing with some
parsimony as it is to deep study of phe- of the centrally significant elements in
nomena. The goal of unification under- each field for the purpose of constructing
lies the PB methodology of retaining the a unified theory of the field. The aim is
98 ARTHUR W. STAATS
to demonstrate the framework theory's chology are seen to constitute connected
relevance for the field and that the theory levels of study, each having principles,
should be extended more broadly (and concepts, methods, and findings to add
deeply), ultimately to confront all the el- to the overarching theory. A field like
ements in each field. The grand frame- personality and measurement, as an ex-
work theory, then, is composed of the ample, has more basic fields to which it
several field theories along with the con- must be related, like learning, as well as
ception that overarches the fields (see more advanced fields, like abnormal psy-
Staats, 1963b, 1975, 1988). chology, to which it is basic. Moreover,
Framework theory is thus different PB recognizes that more "advanced" lev-
from traditional theory, which is cen- els contribute elements of value to more
tered in a specialized field-a major rea- basic levels-that there is a bidirectional,
son PB as a theory has been misunder- not reductionistic, relationship (see
stood. The framework theory, as is the Staats, 1975, chap. 16, 1983).
case with psychology's grand theories, is The theory construction task, it should
an incomplete theory, but by systematic be indicated, is complex. Each field is a
design. Everything in the framework the- very complex body of knowledge, and it
ory must be made consistent with the is necessary in each case to pick and
basic principles. But those principles are choose and reconstitute elements, as well
elaborated through use ofmaterials in the as to generate necessary elements, by
fields treated. The framework theory is a which to construct a framework theory
true theory, operationally connected to of the field. Moreover, this framework
the phenomena studied, and the theory theory must connect to the framework
in each field must show its heuristic prop- theories of the adjacent fields and thus
erties for generating theory, method, and become part of the whole. Let me also
findings. add that there may be theories within
Unlike other theories, PB assumes the each level. Thus, the PB human learning
task of indicating the relationships of the level contains a theory of emotion, of lan-
major fields of psychology. Traditionally, guage, and so on. The PB abnormal psy-
the implicit assumption has been that the chology level, as another example, con-
principles in the specialized field will suf- tains theories of the different behavior
fice to explain all of behavior. For ex- disorders.
ample, in RB there is the basic theory of PB, the overarching theory, is com-
conditioning principles, and all human posed of the level theories, each ofwhich
behaviors are to be explained by the basic includes sublevel theories within it. For
theory. This is a two-level theory pro- example, there are full theories of emo-
gram, which places all the other fields on tion, language, intelligence, attitudes, in-
the same level, as those to be explained. terests, values, reading, writing, and
Such theory does not recognize that some number concept learning, depression, the
of the fields of psychology may be basic anxiety disorders, dyslexia, and so on.
to others. Some of the treatments are more specific
PB takes the position that, although the and may be considered analyses or mini-
conditioning principles are basic, these theories-for example, analyses of phe-
principles have to be developed by add- nomena such as walking, toilet training,
ing concepts and principles, through the communication, concepts, problem solv-
several levels (fields) of psychology. PB ing, the self-concept, number concept
also takes the position that there is a rough learning, and so on. These various the-
dimension, from basic to advanced, that ories and analyses (see Staats, 1963b,
goes from the basic learning theory field 1968a, 1968b, 1971a, 1975), along with
(level) through human learning, devel- their empirical support, are woven to-
opmental, personality and personality gether as part of the theory-construction
measurement, social, abnormal, clinical, task to constitute the overarching frame-
educational, and occupational psychol- work theory (see Staats, 1975). Although
ogy levels. Thus, the major fields in psy- the framework theory is a skeleton, it
 PSYCHOLOGICAL BEHAVIORISM 99

must contain full, heuristic theories (with rich context of human experimentation
empirical-methodological development) that developed later.
at selected spots in its purview. There are PB is a third-generation behaviorism
many elements in the PB framework, of in several senses. It had the advantage of
varying sizes and degrees of completion. the developments of the first two gener-
There are also many empty spaces, of ations as a context. As a consequence, it
various sizes, that need to be filled in by could focus on human behavior, and it
theoretical, methodological, and empir- did so, helping to supply the richer con-
ical work. The framework theory may be- text for today's interests. With its mul-
gin with one person, but the large and tilevel aims, even PB's basic theory of
complex task demands the contributions behavior principles was constructed as a
of many-theoreticians, methodologists, framework theory, which was important.
basic and applied researchers, and phi- As a framework theory, it was pared down
losophers. to essentials, constructed to serve as the
It is not possible here to reduce the foundation for dealing generally with hu-
content of PB and its works to an article. man behavior, and dispensing with the
However, its range of interests-and the complications in the specialized animal
outline of its structure-is summarized behavior theories (see Hull's, 1943, and
in Table 1. The table indicates the levels Tolman's, 1932, focus on intervening
and their relationships, in a general way, variables, and Ferster & Skinner's, 1957,
and also indicates some of the specific focus on reinforcement schedules).
content of interests of the levels as well Although in framework form, PB's ba-
as some of PB's concepts and principles sic theory establishes a fundamental po-
for dealing with those interests. sition in dealing with the relationship of
the two traditions of classical condition-
ing and operant conditioning-a central
CHARACTERIZATION OF problem in the second generation. Is there
PSYCHOLOGICAL BEHAVIORISM one type of animal learning or two? Hull
The areas addressed by the multilevel (1943) and Guthrie (1935) recognized
theory are presented in the left column only one conditioning, the former con-
of the table. The right column character- sidering it to occur through reinforce-
izes some of the principles, concepts, and ment and the latter through contiguity.
purposes of each level. In pursuit of a Skinner's (1938) theoretical formulation,
characterization of PB, a few words will an important contribution, posited two
be said about several of its levels, in a types of response and two types of con-
manner intended to illustrate the PB ditioning. Although Hull was a one-fac-
framework theory as well as to indicate tor theorist, his concept of the fractional
differences from Skinner's radical behav- anticipatory goal response underlay the
iorism. development of another "two-factor" ap-
proach that posited a relationship be-
The Basic Principles Level tween classical and instrumental condi-
tioning (see Doob, 1947; May, 1948;
The second-generation behaviorisms Miller, 1948; Mowrer, 1947; Osgood,
arose in the context of the nonhuman 1953; Rescorla & Solomon, 1967; Solo-
animal research stemming from the two mon & Wynne, 1954). Animals in a shut-
traditions begun by Pavlov and Thorn- tle box learned to escape electric shock.
dike. Each had the task of systematizing The animals then displayed the response
(constructing theories of) the many stud- to a sound stimulus (CS) that had pre-
ies of conditioning, of extending their viously been paired with shock, suggest-
systems through additional research, and ing that the shuttle escape response had
of advancing behaviorism conceptually, been learned to the fear response elicited
methodologically, and philosophically. by the shock. However, measures aimed
During the period when these behavior- to prevent fear responding did not pre-
isms were formulated, there was not the vent the CS from eliciting (controlling)
100 ARTHUR W. STAATS

TABLE 1
The Multilevel Theory of Paradigmatic Behaviorism
Levels (and content-area examples) Principles, concepts, and phenomena
1. Biological mechanisms of learning The neurophysiology of learning: The central pur-
a. Sensory psychology pose of this level of theory is to unify the biological
b. Brain and central nervous system study of organisms with their behavioral study, mak-
c. Response systems ing the two mutually heuristic and removing the
d. Evolution of learning mechanisms schism that separates so much of psychology along
"nature-nurture" lines. The basic bridge relates the
biological concepts of sensory, response, and asso-
ciation organs with the behavioral concepts of stim-
uli, responses, and learning.
2. Basic learning theory Three-function learning theory: Stimuli that elicit an
a. Elementary study: conditioning principles emotional response will, because of this, be reinforcing
b. Generalizing study: types of stimuli, re- stimuli. Both functions (emotion elicitation and rein-
sponses, and species to which principles forcement) are transferred in classical conditioning.
apply Moreover, organisms generally learn to approach pos-
c. Motivation principles itive emotional (and reinforcing) stimuli and to avoid
negative emotional (and punishing) stimuli. As a con-
sequence, emotional stimuli direct (are incentives for)
behavior. This learning theory makes the study of the
various forms of the classical conditioning ofemotions
a central concern in explaining behavior, giving new
directions for animal and human research. Motivation
operations affect the stimulus functions.
3. Human learning principles Complex stimulus-response mechanisms, internal re-
a. Complex stimulus-response learning (e.g., sponses and stimuli, basic behavioral repertoires, and
response sequences, response hierarchies, cumulative-hierarchical learning: The basic learning
and multiple controlling stimuli) theory states the behavioral principles in elemental
b. Response repertoires simplicity. Human skills and general characteristics
c. Cumulative-hierarchical learning princi- are composed of exceedingly complex combinations
ples and others unique to humans of the basic principles. The field of human learning
must study such complex combinations and the man-
ner in which complex, interrelated sets of responses
(repertoires) are learned. Centrally, complex human
skills are complex repertoires that can be acquired
only if the individual has already learned necessary
prior repertoires (e.g., reading can be learned only
after prior language repertoires are learned). These
principles of cumulative-hierarchical learning require
systematic, basic study.
4. Personality Personality is composed of basic behavioral reper-
a. Personality concept toires: From birth the child begins to learn complex
b. The three personality systems: language- systems of "skills" in the three general areas. These
cognitive, emotional-motivational, and are learned in advancing complexity. There are sub-
sensory-motor repertoires that additional learning combines (as lan-
c. Personality and environment interaction guage is composed of separately learned subreper-
toires), and there are repertoires that are basic to the
later learning of more advanced repertoires (as alge-
bra skills rest on the prior learning of arithmetic op-
erations). The three repertoires constitute personality.
In interaction with the environment, they determine
the individual's experience, learning, and behavior.
This theory makes many conceptual unifications pos-
sible in psychology and opens many new avenues of
research.
5. Child development Cumulative-hierarchical learning and development:
a. Language-cognitive development Traditional developmental psychologists have stud-
b. Sensory-motor development, including ied many aspects of the child's development. But there
modeling skills has been little analysis of this development in terms
 PSYCHOLOGICAL BEHAVIORISM 101
TABLE 1
Continued
Levels (and content-area examples) Principles, concepts, and phenomena
c. Emotional-motivational development of complex learning. Paradigmatic behaviorism calls
for this systematic analysis, provides exemplary the-
oretical-empirical analyses of language-cognitive,
emotional-motivational, and sensory-motor devel-
opment through learning, and calls for various new
types of theory and research.
6. The social-personality level of study Interactions among individuals and groups: The
a. Attitudes and social cognition three-function learning principles are basic. Attitudes
b. Interpersonal relations and group process- are emotional responses to social stimuli. Thus, such
es stimuli have reinforcing and incentive (directive)
c. Personality processes, individual and group power, depending on their emotion elicitation. Social
differences, and cross-cultural psychology phenomena such as group cohesion, attraction, per-
suasion, prejudice, and intergroup relations function
by these principles. In addition to the emotional re-
sponse individuals have for each other, the language-
cognitive and sensory-motor personality repertoires
of interactors are determinants of their social behav-
ior. Group character and social role phenomena also
operate according to the basic principles and person-
ality principles.
7. Personality measurement Unifying theory for a behavioral psychometrics: The
a. Theory relating behavior principles, the personality theory provides a conceptual framework
concept of personality, and personality within which the personality concepts, methods, and
measurement and behavioral assessment instruments of the traditional field of psychometrics
b. Application of theory to tests and their uses can be analyzed in a manner compatible with behav-
(clinical, etc.) iorism. Personality tests measure aspects of the basic
c. Applications to test construction and as- behavioral repertoires; this accounts for their ability
sessment: Paradigmatic behavioral assess- to predict behavior. For example, intelligence tests
ment heavily measure language repertoires and sensory-
motor skills, and interest tests measure aspects ofthe
emotional-motivational repertoire. This theory ex-
plains why verbal tests provide knowledge of non-
verbal behavior and emotional states-because the
three personality repertoires are interconnected and
covary-helping to resolve the behaviorism/psycho-
metrics schism. The theory is heuristic for basic re-
search and test construction.
8. Abnormal psychology Paradigmatic behaviorism's theory of abnormal be-
a. The personality repertoires as basic deter- havior: The individual learns personality repertoires
minants of abnormal behavior, in the PB that interact with the life situation in determining
sense behavior. The personality repertoires may be rich and
b. Diagnostic categories as deficient and in- adaptive or sparse and inappropriate. In the latter
appropriate personality repertoires case, the individual's behavior will be abnormal in
c. Personality and environment interaction in certain situations. Life situations that are not normal
abnormal behavior may also produce abnormal behavior. Biological con-
ditions can directly affect the personality repertoires
and produce abnormal behavior. Using this theory,
a unified analysis can be made of the various diag-
nostic categories. For example, schizophrenia in-
volves disturbances especially in the language-cog-
nitive and emotional-motivational repertoires,
phobias involve only a part of the latter repertoire,
and the various subtypes of depression differ in the
repertoires, life events, or biological conditions in-
volved.
9. Clinical psychology Paradigmatic behavior therapy: The various levels
a. Behavior modification of simple problems, of paradigmatic behaviorism are applied to clinical
102 ARTHUR W. STAATS
TABLE 1
Continued
Levels (and content-area examples) Principles, concepts, and phenomena
behavior therapy, and the psychodynam- problems involving various methods of treatment.
ics/conditioning schism The basic learning principles can be employed to di-
b. Paradigmatic behavior therapy rectly treat simple problems. Sometimes personality
c. Personality change and personality mea- or social-environmental problems are involved, and
surement assessment instruments and personality measure-
d. Language-cognitive methods of treatment ment may be needed, along with complex social-en-
vironmental changes and learning programs. The lan-
guage-cognitive level of theory indicates how behavior
and personality can be changed by various verbal
methods of therapy. Paradigmatic behavior therapy
has been in development since the 1950s, has yielded
seminal contributions to behavior therapy, and now
projects new avenues for development.
10. Educational psychology Education and paradigmatic behaviorism: Reading
a. Paradigmatic behaviorism's theories of (like writing and number-concept skills) is explicated
school subjects in theory and research, is considered in specific terms
b. Intelligence, learning readiness, retarda- as complex language-cognitive repertoires, is consid-
tion, and learning disability ered learned in a cumulative-hierarchical manner, and
c. Treatment of problems of school learning is considered based on earlier acquired language rep-
ertoires. Theory and research yield a conception of
intelligence composed of learned and trainable rep-
ertoires. Learning readiness, retardation, and learning
disability, which are typically inferred to result from
biological conditions, can be better explained within
a unified learning-biological theory that stipulates the
repertoires involved, with directives for problem res-
olution. The approach provides new ways for treating
and researching educational problems.
11. Organizational psychology Applying paradigmatic behaviorism to tasks in or-
a. Personnel selection ganizations: Paradigmatic behaviorism's various
b. Motivation in organizational settings levels of theory provide a conceptual framework for
c. Behavioral analysis of jobs analysis of organizations and their characteristics and
d. Organizational conditions and problems problems. For example, the emotional-motivational
theory specifies that individuals and institutions have
"emotional-motivational systems" and that individ-
ual-institutional adjustment depends on harmony be-
tween the two. Because of the personality and psy-
chological measurement levels of theory, the approach
can link more harmoniously with traditional knowl-
edge in such areas as personnel selection, job analysis,
and job training.

the operant (Rescorla & Solomon, 1967). And the experimental work and its con-
Accepting this as negative evidence for ceptualization were divided and inade-
fear mediation, Rescorla and Solomon quate. Two-process work focused on
had no conviction in raising the possi- aversive stimuli, and the findings were not
bility that the effect "is mediated by a related to appetitive animal phenomena
common central state, ... subject to the (such as authoshaping, Brown & Jenkins,
laws of Pavlovian conditioning" (1967, 1968; and transfer of control, Trapold &
p. 178). Winokur, 1967). The Pavlovian-operant
Although valuable, this research area relation needed to be stipulated clearly
died because of its deficits. One was that in terms of the several functions stimuli
the central concept was both poorly de- can have, with the emotional response
fined and left as an intervening variable. concept specified, as well as its positive-
 PSYCHOLOGICAL BEHAVIORISM 103

negative nature, in the context of human words and nonfood words to subjects sa-
research dealing with significant types of tiated on food or deprived of food (15
human behavior, within a general con- hr) and measured salivation to the words
ception indicating the importance of (Staats & Hammond, 1972). Deprivation
emotion for human behavior. Without increased salivation to food words. This
such a framework, research stopped. study demonstrated the conditioned
Skinner's (1975) approach-emphasiz- stimulus (CS) value offood words. In line
ing that emotional responses (and classical with the expectations of PB's basic the-
conditioning) are separate from operant re- ory, research showed that food words
sponses (and operant conditioning)-con- function as stronger reinforcing stimuli
tinued as the dominant basic theory for (Harms & Staats, 1978) for food-de-
radical (and most applied) behaviorists. prived versus nondeprived subjects, as
Emotions do not determine behavior; well as stronger emotion elicitors in clas-
rather, they are only collateral processes. sical conditioning (Staats, Minke, Mar-
Operant behavior is the important thing. tin, & Higa, 1972), and stronger directive
This conception, its methods, and its em- (discriminative) stimuli for approach re-
pirical work, however, do not provide sponding (Staats & Warren, 1974). The
impetus or direction for focally studying primary conditioning of negative emo-
classical conditioning, how it occurs in tional responses to words was shown
uniquely human ways, or how emotions (Staats, Staats, & Crawford, 1962), as well
affect behavior. as how negative emotion-eliciting words,
There is a basic difference here be- contingently presented, decrease operant
tween PB and RB. PB, with its focus on responding (Finley & Staats, 1967).
human behavior, considers emotional With respect to the third (DS) function,
responding central in understanding all emotion-eliciting stimuli control ap-
human behavior. In PB's "three-function proach behavior (in the positive case)
learning theory," classical conditioning because in life the organism's approach
of emotion is of equal importance with behaviors to such stimuli result in re-
operant conditioning in the determina- inforcement-repeatedly. For positive
tion of behavior. To summarize, stimuli emotion-eliciting stimuli are also posi-
are considered to have three major in- tive reinforcing stimuli. Conversely, or-
terrelated behavioral functions; a stim- ganisms are also reinforced (negatively)
ulus can elicit an emotional response, it when they escape from and avoid neg-
can serve as a reinforcing stimulus, or it ative emotional stimuli. The emotion-
can serve to direct (control) behavior (see behavior relationship is strongly learned,
Staats, 1970, 1975, 199 la). Centrally, the so any positive or negative emotion-
reinforcing function depends on the emo- eliciting stimulus controls a large class
tion-eliciting function, for unconditioned of approach or avoidance responses. In-
stimuli as well as conditioned stimuli. creasing a stimulus's emotional value
Thus, as the emotion-eliciting value of a increases its directive value. This is what
stimulus is altered-through condition- accounts for the autoshaping and trans-
ing, or deprivation-satiation operations fer of control phenomena (see Staats,
(in the positive case)-the reinforcing 1975, chap. 4).
value of the stimulus changes. Motivation operations affect the three
Basic studies with human subjects have stimulus functions-deprivation Qf food
established PB's fundamental principles, increases the extent to which a learned
using "human models" of study. For ex- food stimulus will serve as a CS (see Staats
ample, our ordinary language experience & Hammond, 1972), as an RS (see Harms
many times pairs food and food words. & Staats, 1978), and as a DS (see Staats
This should result in a "human prepa- & Warren, 1974).2 Understanding and
ration," in which food words are condi- controlling behavior (especially of hu-
tioned stimuli that elicit an emotional mans) requires knowledge not only of op-
response. This "preparation" effect was erant principles, but also ofclassical con-
shown in a study that presented food ditioning principles, the interaction
104 ARTHUR W. STAATS
between them, and how motivation op- Hayes (1982, p. 81) state that words "elicit
erations affect these functions. conditioned emotional responses" (which
The PB position of classical/operant follows Skinner) and that words can elicit
interaction2 is based on a human classical an emotional response that may alter
conditioning methodology different from one's capacity to "find particular events
experimental analysis ofbehavior (EAB).3 reinforcing or punishing," and that "a
The general methodological position of good commercial can literally make your
PB is to employ various sources of evi- mouth water" (Hayes et al., 1989, pp.
dence in systematizing its concepts and 207-208) and affect the individual's be-
principles, including study of the biolog- havior. On the one hand, Hayes and
ical mechanisms involved in behavior Brownstein (1986) criticize behavior-be-
(see Staats, 1963b, 1975, chap. 4 and 15, havior study for leading away from the
1988; Staats & Eifert, 1990; Staats & Fer- environmental causes that provide con-
nandez-Ballesteros, 1987). Thus, the trol, not just prediction. Yet the above
three-function concept of emotion in- analyses of Hayes and associates include
cludes the evidence provided by brain- description of how emotional responses
stimulation procedures that produce re- affect behavior, without providing or in-
inforcement (Olds & Milner, 1954) and voking any evidence with respect to any
emotional responding (see Kolb & Wish- of the concepts employed. In contrast, PB
aw, 1984). Hayes (1993) has labeled PB has produced principles and findings that
as mechanistic. However, this view re- provide prediction and control (see Ber-
sults from the contrast between PB's kowitz & Knurek, 1969; Early, 1968;
specification of its concepts (with stim- Evans & Weiss, 1978; Hekmat, 1973,
ulus and response analyses) and the RB 1992; Hekmat & Vanian, 1971; Tryon &
practice of leaving its "private event" Briones, 1985). Behavior analysts are now
concepts unspecified (Staats, 1993b). becoming interested in the emotional re-
Hayes and Brownstein (1986) also sponse and its reinforcing and directive
question the use of behavior-behavior functions (see also Blakely & Schlinger,
relations (a concept spelled out in Staats, 1987; Schlinger & Blakely, 1987). PB has
1975, pp. 65-72). In the PB view, there the evidence to support such interests,
is a discrepancy between Hayes's meth- but EAB does not (see Augustson &
odological philosophy and his scientific Dougher, 1992, as a nascent effort).
practices. For example, Hayes and as- We need to confront systematically the
sociates (see Hayes, Zettle, & Rosenfarb, differences in methodology brought up
1989; Zettle & Hayes, 1982) introduce to by Hayes. The methodological argu-
BA the same concepts as those in the ments directed against Hullian theory or
three-function learning theory (notwith- cognitive behaviorism have no relevance
standing a basic incompatibility with for evaluating PB. PB does not infer men-
Skinner's view of emotion). Zettle and tal or cognitive events or structures or
use the intervening-variable methodol-
ogy. Any confrontation between PB and
2 Michael's (1982) "establishing
operations" RB methodology should be specific and
technology presents a later, less defined, less sup- consider such things as the RB treatment
ported conceptualization for dealing with multiple
functions of stimuli and the effects of motivation of emotion and rule-governed behavior,
operations. as well as the private event, augmenting
3PB research methodology is to have the prob- (Hayes et al., 1989), and the establishing
lem determine the method, rather than the reverse, stimulus (Michael, 1982). The latter con-
thus using EAB methods, groups methods, as well cepts appear to have been introduced at
as experimental-naturalistic methods and experi-
mental-longitudinal methods of PB design (see least in part to deal with the classical con-
Staats, Brewer, & Gross, 1970), and others. PB's ditioning/operant conditioning interac-
original definition of behavioral analysis (Staats, tion and the effects of deprivation/sati-
1963a, 1965) involved using multiple methods to ation. As indicated, these are treated in
complement one another, RB once was very dif- PB in a manner that does not require the
ferent from PB in this respect but today is much
less so, although marked differences remain, as in introduction of new concepts. I suggest
the respective philosophies of methodology. that this yields a more consistent, par-
 PSYCHOLOGICAL BEHAVIORISM 105
simonious, and heuristic conceptualiza- sonality that is completely behavioral but
tion for which evidence already exists. necessitates several levels of theory de-
Let me also add that PB's treatment of velopment beyond the elementary learn-
emotions is a good example of what is ing principles. Although the elementary
meant by behaviorizing psychology. As principles of conditioning are necessary,
Skinner (1975) recognized, traditional they are not sufficient for treating many
psychology has mentalistically used the human behavior phenomena. Applied
concept of emotion as a determinant of behaviorists, acquainted only with the
behavior. Mentalism aside, however, how principles of reinforcement, are limited
emotional responding affects the indivi- in their ability to analyze many problems
dual's behavior involves general and im- of human behavior, thus shortchanging
portant phenomena. When the phenom- the value of the behavioral approach.
ena are analyzed and researched in a PB The early work of PB focused on this
framework, the mentalism is removed, human learning level involving the study
yielding a heuristic structure for dealing of how the basic conditioning principles
with topics of interest to both behavior- operate in complex combinations. Al-
ism and psychology. though the various behaviorists did not
PB's learning theory has only been have a systematic program for this study
stated in summary form and thus needs as part of a multilevel theory develop-
specialized elaboration in the large field ment, they nevertheless did make first
of animal behavior. This illustrates the steps in the study of such things. For ex-
framework theory-construction meth- ample, all the major behaviorisms (as well
odology. The framework theory at each as PB) include principles of chains (se-
of its levels is intended to serve two roles:
quences) of responses, response classes,
(a) as a framework calling for specialized response hierarchies, habit families,
development in the particular field, and counterconditioning, conflict, word as-
(b) as a part, to be joined with others, of sociations, successive approximation,
the overarching general behaviorism. abstraction, semantic generalization, re-
sponse mediation and, more recently,
Human Learning Theory transfer of control, autoshaping, stimulus
equivalence, and rule-governed behav-
In our laboratory tradition the funda- ior.
mental conditioning principles are estab- In the PB scheme, these concepts and
lished in the simplest situation possi- principles only begin the extensions of
ble-using simple stimuli, simple the fundamental principles; their opera-
responses, and so on. Elementary, lawful tion must also be studied with human
relationships can thereby clearly be es- subjects, especially in the context of im-
tablished. Human life situations, of portant types of behavior. PB began this
course, are much more complex, involv- development in the early 1950s. Condi-
ing constellations of stimuli and re- tioning principles were extended to the
sponses of different kinds, with complex study oflanguage behaviors (Staats, 1956,
interrelationships; this makes it difficult 1957; Staats & Staats, 1957), and includ-
to see the action of fundamental princi- ed empirical research published the same
ples. However, when such fundamental year as Skinner's (1957) Verbal Behavior.
principles have been specified in animal This was followed in a developing pro-
study, there is then the task of working gram (see Staats, 1963b, 1968a, 1971a,
back in the other direction to show how 1971b, 1975; Staats&Burns, 1981, 1982;
those principles explain complex human Staats & Butterfield, 1965; Staats et al.,
events. 1964). PB introduced the behavioral
Although many cases of human be- study of language development (learning)
havior can be straightforwardly analyzed as well as language function (see Finley
in terms of the elementary conditioning & Staats, 1967; Harms & Staats, 1978;
principles, other cases require additional Staats, 1963b, chap. 5; Staats & Ham-
principles. Later in this paper, I will de- mond, 1972; Staats & Staats, 1958; Staats,
scribe an analysis of intelligence and per- Staats, & Crawford, 1962; Staats & War-
106 ARTHUR W. STAATS
ren, 1974). PB has dealt with the func- practicing behaviorists. This develop-
tions of complex language in communi- ment-empirical, methodological, and
cation, problem solving, and response theoretical-projects a systematic field
mediation generally, in ways that go be- that opens broad vistas of research on
yond interests still in the early stages in topics presently sampled only adventi-
behavior analysis, in areas like rule-gov- tiously in an unrelated and incomplete
erned behavior and stimulus equivalence manner. In the PB program, the human
(see Bums & Staats, 1992). PB thus has learning level concepts and principles
findings, methods, and theory to offer be- (such as the concept of the BBR and the
havior analysis. Moreover, PB calls for principles of cumulative-hierarchical
additional research on how both emo- learning) provide the basis for the more
tional and behavior conditioning can take advanced levels of study. The next lev-
place, via language mechanisms, in el-that of developmental psychology-
uniquely human ways (see Herry, 1984; derives in important part from these de-
Staats & Staats, 1958). General study of velopments. It is not possible to consider
how language processes involving clas- developmental psychology here, and I will
sical (see Berkowitz & Knurek, 1969; go on to personality theory, which is also
Hekmat & Vanian, 1971) and operant based on the "bridging theory construc-
conditioning (see Staats, 1963b, 1968a, tions" of cumulative-hierarchical learn-
1968b, 1975) can affect behavior is need- ing principles and the basic behavioral
ed. repertoire concept.
One outgrowth of this work was the
realization that we need systematic study Personality Theory
of how humans learn repertoires, a con-
cept that has been left with a common- Traditional psychology very generally
sense definition. PB's research introduces employs a concept of "personality" (or
the human learning principles of cumu- various analogous terms such as intelli-
lative-hierarchical learning, which de- gence) as an internal process or structure
scribe how learning one repertoire can that determines behavior. Watson re-
provide the basis for learning another jected that mentalistic concept of deter-
repertoire that in turn provides the basis mination, saying in essence that person-
for learning yet another repertoire (see ality could only be conceived of as
Staats et al., 1970). Typically, all com- behavior itself. Behaviorism (including
plex human performances- "skills," PB, see Staats, 1963b, chap. 2) has gen-
"abilities," or "talents"-involve such erally indicated the circularity of infer-
cumulative-hierarchical learning of se- ring personality from behavior and then
quentially acquired repertoires. If we want "explaining" behavior by the concept.
to understand skills and abilities, we must Much of the separation of behaviorism
study those repertoires. New findings and and traditional psychology comes from
principles are involved (see Staats et al., these antagonistic positions; for example,
1970; Staats & Burns, 1981). For ex- psychology gives psychometrics an im-
ample, there is a learning acceleration portant place, whereas behaviorism has
phenomenon produced by cumulative- not and thus has contributed little to this
hierarchical learning; thus, learning to field. Psychology's rejection of behavior-
read successive letters requires progres- ism is in good part based on such divi-
sively fewer reinforced trials. Out of this sions.
study has come the central definition of The PB goal has been to analyze (be-
the basic behavioral repertoire (BBR) as haviorize) human behavioral phenome-
a repertoire that is necessary for later na of progressively greater complexity,
learning. rather than to study personality. These
PB indicates that the human learning analyses, however, ended up providing a
concepts and principles essentially add to foundation for a concept of personality
the behaviorist's theory and are neces- that was completely behavioral (and not
sary for both research behaviorists and circular), but that also fulfills traditional
 PSYCHOLOGICAL BEHAVIORISM 107

psychology's concern with personality as S" b BBR -- * B

a causal process. To illustrate, PB re-

search studied how language is composed
of conditioned behaviors, then how lan- S,
guage categories are composed of reper- Figure 1. S, stands for the original environment,
toires of such behaviors, then how the the environment up to the present time that has
language repertoires are learned, and fi- been responsible for the individual learning basic
nally how the language repertoires func- behavioral repertoires (BBRs). The present envi-
tion as determinants of further learning ronmental situation in which the individual finds
himselfor herselfis depicted as S2. The individual's
and behavior. The language repertoires, behavior, B, in that situation will be determined by
for example, function in most types of the conditions of S2 and the BBRs that the indi-
school learning (e.g., reading and math vidual "brings" to that situation. B is a function of
learning; see Staats, 1968a), in the indi- both S, and BBR in interaction. B represents overt
vidual's performance (behavior) in prob- behavior as well as the experience (emotional or
ideational) the individual has and the learning that
lem solving (see Staats, 1956, 1963b), in results. B can affect environmental conditions (e.g.,
reasoning and planning, in communica- the responses of others) that act on the individual
tion, and so on (Staats, 1963a, 1963b). It and have the effect of producing additional devel-
became increasingly clear in this analysis opment of the BBRs. Thus, there is a continuing
interaction between B and the BBRs.
that individual differences in language
accounted for individual differences in
later behavior (and in learning and ex- were unexpected in traditional theory
perience); this became a conceptual foun- (Staats & Burns, 1981). The PB theory
dation by which to analyze the phenom- of intelligence was not circular-intelli-
ena of personality and personality gence consisted of explicit basic behav-
measurement in behavioral terms (see ioral repertoires whose learning had been
Staats, 1975, 1986a, 1993a). analyzed (Staats, 1 990b). Moreover, the
In this the PB conception was that PB analyses provided the basis for ma-
measured "personality traits" must ac- nipulating (controlling) intelligence.
tually sample the basic behavioral rep- This is a new type of theory of person-
ertoires. This made analysis of the item ality (see Staats, 1993a, 1993c; Staats &
content of psychological tests central, Burns, 1992) that has been carried into
rather than taking total scores as mea- other areas (see Staats & Burns, 1982;
surements of a trait. To illustrate, items Staats et al., 1973). As schematized in
on the Stanford-Binet (Terman & Mer- Figure 1, SI stands for the individual's
rill, 1937) were analyzed in terms of the learning environment up to the present,
language BBRs (see Staats, 1963b, 1971 a, and BBRs are the basic behavioral rep-
1975); there were items that measured ertoires that have resulted; these consti-
the child's verbal-labeling repertoire, the tute the individual's personality. S2 stands
verbal-motor repertoire, and so on. It was for the current environmental situation.
also found that training preschool chil- The individual's behavior (and experi-
dren in such language repertoires led to ence and learning)-B in the figure-is a
increases in intelligence measures (see function of both S2 and the BBRs.
Staats, 1968a; Staats et al., 1970). A more This personality theory calls for study
general theory of intelligence was for- of each of these variables (S1, BBR, S2,
mulated (Staats, 1971 a), and this provid- and B) and their relationships (the be-
ed the basis for new empirical analyses. havior principles). Let me emphasize that
One study trained children to read letters, behavior principles operate throughout,
write letters, and use numbers by em- both in the learning of the BBRs and in
ploying token-reinforcer training proce- their operation when the individual con-
dures previously developed in PB to pre- fronts the current situation. But expla-
pare deprived 4-year-old children for nation of the individual's behavior can-
school. Acquisition of these BBRs pro- not be obtained only by knowledge of the
duced increased intelligence test mea- current situation and behavior princi-
sures in explicitly predictable ways that ples. Explanation requires knowledge of
108 ARTHUR W. STAATS

the individual's BBRs. This framework Figure 2. The model says that the indi-
theory involves stipulation of what per- vidual's original environmental learning
sonality is in a behavioral sense, how and conditions, SI, may be deficient or in-
by what principles it is formed, and how appropriate and thus produce (through
and by what principles it has its effects learning) deficient or inappropriate basic
on behavior. Neither traditional psy- behavioral repertoires in the individual.
chology nor behaviorism has provided Those abnormal BBRs, in turn, will cause
these essential developments. The PB the individual's experience, learning, and
framework theory, however, contains behavior-B in the figure-to be defi-
methodology and prototypical findings cient or inappropriate in the later situa-
that provide that beginning specification. tions that are encountered, S2. For ex-
The approach calls for creation of re- ample, a child with severe deficits in the
search fields in developmental psychol- BBRs of language (as in mental retarda-
ogy to study the learning of the BBRs and tion) will behave differently and not ex-
in psychometrics to behaviorize the var- perience things or learn like other chil-
ious personality instruments (see Fer- dren in situations that employ language.
nandez-Ballesteros & Staats, 1992; Staats, Also, the individual with severely inap-
1975, 1986a, 1993a, 1993c; Staats & Fer- propriate language BBRs (as in schizo-
nandez-Ballesteros, 1987; Staats &Burns, phrenia) cannot learn well, reason well,
1981, 1982). Such behavioral analysis or communicate well with others and will
makes the fields explanatory and is basic behave in ways considered to be abnor-
for other fields that aim to change per- mal (see Staats, 1975, chap. 8). In addi-
sonality in order to change behavior. tion to the BBRs, S2 can also be deficient
Broadly undertaking this agenda of de- or inappropriate and, in interaction with
velopment-the PB behavioral analysis the BBRs, produce abnormal behavior.
of personality (the BBRs)-would make The PB conception has various heu-
behaviorism important to psychology (see ristic implications. For example, there is
Staats, 1993a). An explanatory theory is a strong developmental perspective that
also essential for applied behavior ana- calls for behavior analyses of the manner
lysts and behavior therapists in order to in which abnormal BBRs are learned. Be-
provide tests with specifically manipu- haviorism has not made this call
lative possibilities instead of tests with (Eysenck, 1960; Lovaas, 1966), although
only traditional uses (see Fernandez-Bal- treatment methods now involve training
lesteros & Staats, 1992; Haynes & O'Bri- children in repertoires such as those spec-
an, 1990). ified in PB (Lovaas, 1977).
To continue, some S-O-R behavioral
Abnormal Behavior Theory models of behavior problems have in-
cluded a variable 0, but without speci-
The first behavioral taxonomy of ab- fying what 0 consists of or what the re-
normal behavior (Staats, 1963b, chap. 1) lationship of 0 is to behavior (Goldfried
was presented in PB, and it played a heu- & Sprafkin, 1974; Kanfer & Phillips,
ristic role in the early fields of behavior 1970). In contrast, PB's specificity re-
modification and behavior assessment quirement includes biological-behavior-
(see Goldfried, 1976; Goldfried & Spraf- al stipulation (see Staats, 1963b, chap. 1;
kin, 1974; O'Leary & Drabman, 1971; 1975, chap. 4 and 15). Very briefly, the
Silva, 1991). But that analysis was in- position is that biological variables can
tended as a framework theory, to be de- play an important role in producing ab-
veloped in successive stages. The next PB normal behavior at each of the sites of
theory of abnormal behavior employed causation already described, as shown in
research on the BBRs, plus analysis of Figure 3. At the time of original learning,
personality tests in terms of the BBRs abnormal biological conditions (0k) can
(Staats, 1975, chap. 8). This new frame- yield deficit or inappropriate BBR de-
work was first schematized (Staats, 1979) velopment. Down syndrome is an ex-
without considering the biological as- ample of biological deficit that restricts
pects of abnormal behavior, as shown in learning of the BBRs. At a later time,
 PSYCHOLOGICAL BEHAVIORISM 109
S1- * BBR - B S1 - °1 ----*B °-4 B
Deficit Deficit Deficit 1.D 1.D 1. D 1.D l. D
Inappropriate Inappropriate / Inappropriate 2.I 2.I 2. 1 2.I 2. I

03
1. D
2. r

SaDeficit
Inappropriate
1. D
Figure 2. S, stands for the past environment. De- 2. I
ficient or inappropriate conditions in the environ-
ment will produce deficient or inappropriate BBRs Figure 3. Organic conditions are introduced at each
in the individual, which will produce deficient or site of causation. S,, BBR, or S2 may be deficient
inappropriate behavior in the individual, even (D) or inappropriate (I). But even when they are
though environmental situations encountered later, normal, organic conditions may be deficient or in-
S2, are normal. However, S2 may also be deficient appropriate for the individual during original learn-
or inappropriate and produce deficient or inappro- ing (S,), which will result in the BBRs being defi-
priate behavior in the individual, even though the cient or inappropriate. Moreover, even though the
individual's BBRs are normal. Deficient or inap- BBRs are normal, organic conditions at a later time,
propriate conditions in S2 and the BBRs interact to 02, may be deficient or inappropriate, which will
produce abnormal (deficient or inappropriate) be- make the individual's behavior, B, deficient or in-
havior. appropriate. Moreover, deficient or inappropriate
organic conditions may make the individual unable
to perceive (sense) a later environment, S2, nor-
after the BBRs have been learned, ab- mally and thus may produce deficient or inappro-
priate behavior.
normal biological conditions (02) have a
different effect, as when brain damage re-
moves already learned BBRs. Finally, (Staats & Heiby, 1985). This theory al-
abnormal biological conditions acting at ready serves as the foundation for an ex-
03 may also affect the way the individual tensive series of research studies, es-
can sense the present environment, as is pecially by Elaine Heiby (see Heiby, 1986)
the case when the individual loses visual and others (Rose & Staats, 1988). The-
or auditory acuity in old age. (0A, 02, or ories of other behavior disorders have
03 effects can involve conditions that are already been drafted (see Staats, 1989) as
temporary, as is the case with drug use, part of filling in the skeleton of the theory
as well as permanent.) Again, this PB of abnormal behavior. For example, the
model makes more explicit the ways and PB theory of anxiety disorders analyzes
times in which biological variables can, individual disorders, indicates their
in a behavioral manner, produce abnor- commonalities and differences, and in-
mal behavior. An analytic basis for uni- troduces new principles in the process.
fying and researching biological and be- Disseminated in 1989, this particular
havioral variables is established that has theory is already being systematically re-
treatment (manipulative) directives (see searched by Leonard Bums (see Stem-
Fernandez-Ballesteros & Staats, 1992; berger & Bums, 1991) and extended in
Staats, 1989, 1990a, 1993a). more detailed treatments of the specific
As indicated, the PB theory of abnor- anxiety disorders that include the general
mal behavior, as a framework theory, was literature in the field (see Eifert, Evans,
set forth in an early version (Staats, & McKendrick, 1990). The PB theory of
1963b, chap. 11) and advanced later on abnormal behavior (Staats, 1989) illus-
(Staats, 1975, chap. 8). The behavior dis- trates how framework theory develops
orders exemplified were not treated in and the heuristic effects it has.
detail, but the PB program calls for such
analysis in the form of specialized theo- PARADIGMATIC BEHAVIORAL
ries. The first specialized theory-other THERAPY
than PB's theory of dyslexia (see Burns
& Kondrick, 1992; Leduc, 1984, 1988; One of the PB's earliest concems in-
Staats, 1975, chap. 11; Staats & Butter- volved the analysis and treatment of
field, 1965)-deals with depression problems of behavior (Staats, 1957),
110 ARTHUR W. STAATS

which included principles that became original goal. Behaviorism has this po-
basic in early behavior modification. This tential. But first it must select the frame-
interest led to PB's analysis and treat- work to guide the many works involved.
ment ofnonreading in children (see Staats PB has been constructed for that purpose.
& Butterfield, 1965; Staats et al., 1964; That framework calls for new directions
Staats, Staats, Schutz, & Wolf, 1962), of research-empirical, theoretical (and
which introduced the token-reinforcer scholarly), philosophical, and method-
system and behavioral study of devel- ological. We suggest that the future of
opmental disabilities (see O'Leary & behaviorism lies in this blueprint for de-
Drabman, 1971). However, the PB ap- velopment, as does psychology's ad-
proach was that the application of the vancement as a science.
basic conditioning principles does not ex-
haust the possibilities for behavioral ap- REFERENCES
plication. For example, one PB analysis
(Staats, 1972) aimed at removing the re- Augustson, E., & Dougher, M. (1992). Transfer
sistance to verbal psychotherapy, be- of respondent functions and avoidance behavior
via stimulus equivalence. Paper presented at the
cause PB's theory of language showed that 18th annual convention of the Association for
behavior could be changed via language. Behavior Analysis, San Francisco.
(Hamilton, 1988, later came to a similar Ayllon, T., & Michael, J. (1959). The psychiatric
view, within RB.) Let me now add that nurse as a behavioral engineer. Journal of the
use and development of this PB analysis Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2, 323-334.
Baars, B. J. (1984). View from a road not taken.
could improve on cognitive behavioral Contemporary Psychology, 29, 804-805.
therapy. PB has various implications for Berkowitz, L., & Knurek, D. A. (1969). A label
new directions in clinical research and mediated hostility generalization. Journal ofPer-
practice (see Eifert & Evans, 1990; Fer- sonality and Social Psychology, 13, 200-206.
Blakely, E., & Schlinger, H. (1987). Rules: Func-
nandez-Ballesteros & Staats, 1992). tion-altering contingency-specifying stimuli. The
Behavior Analyst, 10, 183-187.
Brown, P. L., & Jenkins, H. M. (1968). Auto-
UNIFYING AND BEHAVIORIZING shaping of the pigeon's key-peck. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis ofBehavior, I1, 1-8.
The preceding sections characterize the Burns, G. L., & Kondrick, P. A. (1992). Analysis
multilevel theory and method of PB. By and treatment ofdevelopmental reading disorder
adding to the basic conditioning princi- (dyslexia). Symposium paper presented at the 18th
ples progressively, over the various levels annual meeting of the Association for Behavior
Analysis, San Francisco.
of study, it is possible to construct a Burns, G. L., & Staats, A. W. (1992). Rule-gov-
framework that is fully behavioristic. Yet erned behavior: Unifying radical and paradig-
the added developments provide the matic behaviorism. Journal of Verbal Behavior,
means by which to analyze complex hu- 9, 127-143.
man behavior in ways not possible using Dollard, J., & Miller, N. E. (1950). Personality
and psychotherapy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
only basic conditioning principles. And Doob, L. W. (1947). The behavior of attitudes.
the multilevel framework makes it pos- Psychological Review, 54, 135-156.
sible to deal with important concepts, Early, J. C. (1968). Attitude learning in children.
findings, and methods within psycho- Journal ofEducational Psychology, 59, 176-180.
logy. Eifert, G. H., & Evans, I. M. (1990). Unifying
behavior therapy: Contributions ofparadigmatic
The PB position is that behaviorism's behaviorism. New York: Springer.
goal should not be to replace or defeat Eifert, G. H., Evans, I. M., & McKendrick, V.
psychology; the program should be that (1990). Matching treatments to client problems
of behaviorizing psychology. Behavior- not diagnostic labels: A case for paradigmatic
behavior therapy. Journal of Behavior Therapy
izing analyses build and elaborate be- and Experimental Psychiatry, 21, 245-253.
haviorism as well as psychology. More- Evans, I. M., & Weiss, A. R. (1978). Process stud-
over, behaviorized works are unified and ies in language conditioning: II. The role of se-
will turn psychology into a unified, more mantic relevance in conditioning negative emo-
tional responses. Journal ofBehavior Therapy and
powerful science, in a way cognitivism Experimental Psychiatry, 9, 121-124.
cannot. Behaviorism can in this way be- Eysenck, H. J. (Ed.). (1960). Behavior therapy and
come the way of psychology-Watson's the neuroses. London: Pergamon.
 PSYCHOLOGICAL BEHAVIORISM 111

Fernandez-Ballesteros, R., & Staats, A. W. (1992). convention ofthe Association for Behavior Anal-
Paradigmatic behavioral assessment, treatment ysis, San Francisco.
and evaluation: Answering the crisis in behav- Hekmat, H., & Vanian, D. (1971). Behavior mod-
ioral assessment. Advances in Behavior Research ification through covert semantic desensitization.
and Therapy, 14, 1-18. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
Feigl, H. (1970). The "orthodox" view oftheories: 36, 248-251.
Remarks in defense as well as critique. In M. Herry, M. (1984). Le principe du conditionne-
Radner & S. Winokur (Eds.), Minnesota studies ment instrumental d'ordre superieur. In A. Leduc
in the philosophy of science (Vol. 4, pp. 3-16). (Ed.), Recherches sur le behaviorisme paradig-
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. matique ou social (pp. 31-42). Brossard, Quebec:
Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules Behaviora.
ofreinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century- Hull, C. L. (1930). Knowledge and purpose as
Crofts. habit mechanisms. Psychological Review, 37, 51 1-
Finley, J. R., & Staats, A. W. (1967). Evaluative 525.
meaning words as reinforcing stimuli. Journal of Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior. New
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 193- York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
197. Kanfer, F. H., & Phillips, J. S. (1970). Learning
Fraley, L. E., & Vargas, E. A. (1986). Separate foundations ofbehavior therapy. New York: Wi-
disciplines: The study of behavior and the study ley.
of the psyche. The Behavior Analyst, 9, 47-59. Kolb, B., & Wishaw, I. (1984). Fundamentals of
Goldfried, M. R. (1976). Behavioral assessment. human neuropsychology. San Francisco: Free-
In I. B. Weiner (Ed.), Clinical methods in psy- man.
chology (pp. 212-241). New York: Wiley. Leduc, A. (1984). Recherches sur le behaviorisme
Goldfried, M. R., & Sprafkin, J. (1974). Behav- paradigmatique ou social. Brossard, Quebec: Be-
ioral personality assessment. Morristown, NJ: haviora.
General Learning Press. Leduc, A. (1988). A paradigmatic behavioral ap-
Guess, D. (1969). A functional analysis of recep- proach to the treatment of a "wild" child. Child
tive language and productive speech: Acquisition and Family Behavior Therapy, 9, 1-16.
of the plural morpheme. Journal ofApplied Be- Lovaas, 0. I. (1966). A behavior therapy ap-
havior Analysis, 2, 55-64. proach to the treatment of childhood schizo-
Guthrie, E. R. (1935). The psychology oflearning. phrenia. In J. P. Hill (Ed.), Minnesota symposium
New York: Harper. on child psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 108-159). Min-
Hamilton, S. A. (1988). Behavioral formulation neapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
of verbal behavior in psychotherapy. Clinical Lovaas, O. I. (1977). The autistic child: Language
Psychology Review, 8, 181-194. development through behavior modification. New
Harms, J. Y., & Staats, A. W. (1978). Food dep- York: Irvington.
rivation and conditioned reinforcing value offood May, M. A. (1948). Experimentally acquired
words: Interaction ofPavlovian and instrumental drives. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38,
conditioning. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Soci- 66-77.
ety, 12, 294-296. Michael, J. L. (1982). Distinguishingbetweenthe
Hayes, S. C. (1993). Psychological behaviorism: discriminative and motivational functions of
Causal, courtship or commitment? Panel discus- stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
sion, 27th annual convention of the Association Behavior, 37, 149-155.
for Behavior Advancement, Atlanta, GA. Miller, N. E. (1948). Studies of fear as an acquir-
Hayes, S. C., & Brownstein, A. J. (1986). Men- able drive: I. Fear as motivation and fear reduc-
talism, behavior-behavior relations, and a be- tion as reinforcement in the learning of new re-
havior-analytic view of the purposes of science. sponses. Journal ofExperimental Psychology, 38,
TheBehaviorAnalyst, 9, 175-190. 89-101.
Hayes, S. C., Zettle, R. D., & Rosenfarb, I. (1989). Moore, J. (1985). Some historical and conceptual
Rule-following. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.), Rule-gov- relations among logical positivism, operation-
erned behavior (pp. 191-220). New York: Ple- ism, and behaviorism. The Behavior Analyst, 8,
num. 53-63.
Haynes, S. N., & O'Brian, W. H. (1990). Func- Mowrer, 0. H. (1947). On the dual nature of
tional analysis in behavior therapy. Clinical Psy- learning-A reinterpretation of "conditioning"
chology Review, 10, 649-668. and "problem solving." Harvard Educational
Heiby, E. M. (1986). Social and self-reinforce- Review, 17, 102-148.
ment deficits in four cases ofdepression. Behavior Olds, J., & Milner, P. (1954). Positive reinforce-
Therapy, 17, 158-169. ment produced by electrical stimulation of the
Hekmat, H. (1973). Systematic versus semantic septal area and other regions of the rat brain.
desensitization and implosive therapy. Journal Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psy-
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40, 202- chology, 47, 419-427.
209. O'Leary, K. D., & Drabman, R. (1971). Token
Hekmat, H. (1992). Paradigmatic behaviorism's reinforcement programs in the classroom: A re-
theory and management ofhuman pain reactions. view. Psychological Bulletin, 75, 379-398.
Symposium paper presented at the 18th annual Osgood, C. E. (1953). Method and theory in ex-
112 ARTHUR W. STAATS
perimental psychology. New York: Oxford Uni- Staats, A. W. (1965). A case in and a strategy for
versity Press. the extension of learning principles to complex
Piaget, J., & Kamil, C. (Trans.). (1978). What is human behavior. In L. Krasner & L. P. Ullmann
psychology? American Psychologist, 33, 648-652. (Eds.), Research in behavior modification (pp. 27-
Plaud, J. J. (1992). Should we take the "radical" 55). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
out of "behaviorism"?: Some comments about Staats, A. W. (1968a). Learning, language, and
behavior therapy and philosophy. The Behavior cognition. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Therapist, 15, 121-122. Staats, A. W. (1968b). Social behaviorism and
Rescorla, R. A., & Solomon, R. L. (1967). Two- human motivation: Principles of the attitude-re-
process learning theory: Relationships between inforcer-discriminative system. In A. G. Green-
Pavlovian conditioning and instrumental learn- wald, T. C. Brock, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psy-
ing. Psychological Review, 74, 151-182. chological foundations of attitudes (pp. 33-66).
Rondal, J. (1984). Adult-child interaction and the New York: Academic Press.
process of of language acquisition. New York: Staats, A. W. (1970). A learning-behavior theory:
Praeger. A basis for unity in behavioral-social science. In
Rose, G. D., & Staats, A. W. (1988). Depression A. R. Gilgen (Ed.), Contemporary scientific psy-
and frequency and strength of pleasant events: chology (pp. 183-239). New York: Academic
Exploration of the Staats-Heiby theory. Behavior Press.
Therapy, 26, 489-494. Staats, A. W. (1971a). Child learning, intelligence
Sailor, W. (1971). Reinforcement and generaliza- and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
tion of productive plural allomorphs in two re- Staats, A. W. (1971b). Linguistic-mentalistic the-
tarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior ory versus an explanatory S-R learning theory of
Analysis, 4, 305-310. language development. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The
Schlinger, H., & Blakely, E. (1987). Function-al- ontogenesisofgrammar(pp. 103-152). New York:
tering effects of contingency-specifying stimuli. Academic Press.
The Behavior Analyst, 10, 41-45. Staats,A.W. (1972). Languagebehaviortherapy:
Silva, F. (1991). Evaluacion conductualy criterios A derivation of social behaviorism. Behavior
psicometricos. Madrid: Piramide. Therapy, 3, 165-192.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). Thebehavioroforganisms. Staats, A. W. (1975). Social behaviorism. Home-
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. wood, IL: Dorsey.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behav- Staats, A. W. (1979). El conductismo social: Un
ior. New York: Macmillan. fundamento de la modificacion del comporta-
Skinner,B.F. (1957). Verbalbehavior. NewYork: miento. Revista Latinoamericana de psicologia,
Appleton-Century-Crofts. 11, 9-46.
Skinner, B. F. (1959). A case history in scientific Staats, A. W. (1981). Paradigmatic behaviorism,
method. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of unified theory, unified theory construction meth-
a science (Vol. 2, pp. 359-379). New York: Mc- ods, and the zeitgeist of separatism. American
Graw-Hill. Psychologist, 26, 239-256.
Skinner,B.F. (1966). Anoperantanalysisofprob- Staats, A. W. (1983). Paradigmatic behaviorism:
lem-solving. In B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.), Problem Unified theory for social-personality psychology.
solving: Research, method and theory (pp. 225- In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental
257). New York: Wiley. social psychology (Vol. 16, pp. 126-179). New
Skinner, B. F. (1975). The steep and thorny way York: Academic Press.
to a science of behavior. American Psychologist, Staats, A. W. (1986a). Behaviorism with a per-
30, 42-49. sonality: The paradigmatic behavioral assess-
Solomon, R. A., & Wynne, L. C. (1954). Trau- ment approach. In R. 0. Nelson & S. C. Hayes
matic avoidance learning: The principles of anx- (Eds.), Conceptual foundations of behavioral as-
iety conservation and partial reversibility. Psy- sessment (pp. 244-296). New York: Guilford.
chological Review, 61, 353-385. Staats, A. W. (1986b). Left and right paths for
Staats, A. W. (1956). A behavioristic study of ver- behaviorism's development. The Behavior Ana-
bal and instrumental response hierarchies and their lyst, 9, 231-237.
relationship to human problem solving. Unpub- Staats, A. W. (1988). Skinner's theory and the
lished doctoral dissertation, University of Cali- emotion-behavior relationship: Incipient change
fornia, Los Angeles. with major implications. American Psychologist,
Staats, A. W. (1957). Learning theory and "op- 43, 747-748.
posite speech." Journal of Abnormal and Social Staats, A. W. (1989). Personality and abnormal
Psychology, 55, 268-269. behavior. Unpublished manuscript.
Staats, A. W. (1963a). Comments on Professor Staats, A. W. (1990a). Paradigmatic behavior
Russell's paper. In C. N. Cofer & B. S. Musgrave therapy: A unified framework for theory, re-
(Eds.), Verbal behavior and learning (pp. 271- search, and practice. In G. H. Eifert & I. M. Evans
290). New York: McGraw-Hill. (Eds.), Unifying behavior therapy: Contributions
Staats, A. W. (1963b). Complex human behavior. of paradigmatic behaviorism (pp. 14-54). New
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. (with con- York: Springer.
tributions by C. K. Staats) Staats, A. W. (1990b). Paradigmatic behaviorism
Staats, A. W. (Ed.). (1964). Human learning. New and intelligence: Task analysis? technical plan?
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. or theory? Psicothema, 2(1), 29-38.
 PSYCHOLOGICAL BEHAVIORISM 113
Staats, A. W. (199 1a). Emotion and behavior. In- ural words as physiological conditioned stimuli:
vited address presented at the 17th annual con- Food-word-elicited salivation and deprivation ef-
vention of the Association for Behavior Analysis, fects. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 96,
Atlanta, GA. 206-208.
Staats, A. W. (1991b). Unified positivism and Staats, A. W., & Heiby, E. M. (1985). Paradig-
unification psychology: Fad or new field? Amer- matic behaviorism's theory of depression: Uni-
ican Psychologist, 46, 899-912. fied, explanatory, and heuristic. In S. Reiss & R.
Staats, A. W. (1992a). Behaviorizing psychology: R. Bootzin (Eds.), Theoretical issues in behavior
A fundamental program in paradigmatic behav- therapy (pp. 279-330). New York: Academic
iorism. Symposium paper presented at the 18th Press.
annual convention of the Association for Behav- Staats, A. W., Minke, K. A., Martin, C. H., & Higa,
ior Analysis, San Francisco. W. R. (1972). Deprivation-satiation and strength
Staats, A. W. (1992b). Behaviorology and para- of attitude conditioning: A test of attitude-rein-
digmatic behaviorism: Fundamental differences forcer-discriminative theory. Journal of Person-
among basic commonalities. Behaviorological ality and Social Psychology, 24, 178-185.
Commentaries, Serial No. 3, Summer, 38-41. Staats, A. W., & Staats, C. K. (1958). Attitudes
Staats, A. W. (1993a). Personality theory, abnor- established by classical conditioning. Journal of
mal psychology, and psychological measure- Abnormal and Social Psychology, 57, 37-40.
ment: A psychological behaviorism. Behavior Staats, A. W., Staats, C. K., & Crawford, H. L.
Modification, 17, 8-42. (1962). First-order conditioning of a GSR and
Staats, A. W. (1 993b). Psychological behaviorism: the parallel conditioning of meaning. Journal of
Causal, courtship or commitment? Panel discus- General Psychology, 67, 159-167.
sion, 27th annual convention of the Association Staats, A. W., Staats, C. K., Schutz, R. E., & Wolf,
for Behavior Advancement, Atlanta, GA. M. M. (1962). The conditioning of reading re-
Staats, A. W. (1993c). Why do we need another sponses use "extrinsic" reinforcers. Journal ofthe
behaviorism (such as paradigmatic behavior- Experimental Analysis ofBehavior, 5, 33-40.
ism)? The Behavior Therapist, 16, 64-68. Staats, A. W., & Warren, D. R. (1974). Motiva-
Staats, A. W., Brewer, B. A., & Gross, M. C. (1970). tion and three-function learning: Deprivation-sa-
Learning and cognitive development: Represen- tiation and approach-avoidance to food words.
tative samples, cumulative-hierarchical learning, Journal ofExperimental Psychology, 103, 1191-
and experimental-longitudinal methods. Mono- 1199.
graphs of the Society for Research in Child De- Staats, C. K., & Staats, A. W. (1957). Meaning
velopment, 35 (8, Whole No. 141). established by classical conditioning. Journal of
Staats, A. W., & Burns, G. L. (1981). Intelligence Experimental Psychology, 54, 74-80.
and child development: What intelligence is and Sternberger, L. G., & Bums, G. L. (1991). Ob-
how it is learned and functions. Genetic Psy- sessions and compulsions in a college sample:
chology Monographs, 104, 237-301. Distinction between symptoms and diagnoses.
Staats, A. W., & Burns, G. L. (1982). Emotional Behavior Therapy, 22, 569-576.
personality repertoire as cause of behavior: Spec- Terman, L. M., & Merrill, M. A. (1937). Mea-
ification of personality and interaction principles. suring intelligence. New York: Houghton-Mif-
Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 43, flin.
873-881. Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive behavior in an-
Staats, A. W., & Butterfield, W. H. (1965). Treat- imals and men. New York: Century.
ment of nonreading in a culturally-depreived ju- Tolman, E. C. (1959). Principles of purposive be-
venile delinquent: An application of reinforce- havior. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of
ment principles. Child Development, 36, 925-942. a science (Vol. 2, pp. 92-157). New York: Mc-
Staats, A. W., & Eifert, G. H. (1990). A paradig- Graw-Hill.
matic behaviorism theory of emotions: A basis Toulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding.
for unification. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
1-40. Trapold, M. A., & Winokur, S. (1967). Transfer
Staats, A. W., & Fernandez-Ballesteros, R. (1987). from classical conditioning and extinction to to
The self-report in personality measurement: A acquisition, extinction, and stimulus generaliza-
paradigmatic behaviorism approach to psycho- tion of a positively reinforced instrumental re-
diagnostics. Evaluacion Psicologica/Psychologi- sponse. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73,
cal Measurement, 3, 151-190. 517-525.
Staats, A. W., Finley, J. R., Minke, K. A., & Wolf, Tryon, W. W. (1990). Why paradigmatic behav-
M. M. (1964). Reinforcement variables in the iorism should be retitled psychological behav-
control of unit reading responses. Journal of the iorism. The Behavior Therapist, 13, 127-128.
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 7, 139-149. Tryon, W. W., & Briones, R. G. (1985). Higher-
Staats, A. W., Gross, M. C., Guay, P. F., & Carlson, order semantic counterconditioning of Filipino
C. G. (1973). Personality and social systems women's evaluation of heterosexual behaviors.
and attitude-reinforcer-discriminative theory: Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental
Interest (attitude) formation, function, and mea- Psychiatry, 16, 125-131.
surement. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psy- Ulman, J. D. (1990). Paradigmatic behaviorism:
chology, 26, 251-261. Hierarchically schematized eclecticism. TIBA
Staats, A. W., & Hammond, 0. W. (1972). Nat- Newsletter, 2, 6.
 114 ARTHUR W. STAATS
Watson,J. (1930). Behaviorism. Chicago, IL: Uni- Zettle, R. D., & Hayes, S. C. (1982). Rule-gov-
versity of Chicago Press. erned behavior: A potential theoretical frame-
Zanna, M. P., Kiesler, C. A., & Pilkonis, P. A. work for cognitive-behavior therapy. In P. C.
(1970). Positive and negative attitudinal affect Kendall (Ed.), Advances in cognitive-behavioral
established by classical conditioning. Journal of research and therapy (Vol. 1, pp. 73-118). New
Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 321-328. York: Academic Press.

View publication stats