Search

The language of behavior analysis is precise in the sense that it focuses attention on functional relations between behavior and the environment that are extended in time. However, to non-behavior analysts, behavior-analytic terms and explanations are difficult to understand and awkward sounding. Evidence suggests that this has had deleterious effects on the acceptance of the field of behavior analysis and its explanations of behavior. The goal of this article is to assert that verbal behavior that describes behavior is functionally related to subsequent explanatory verbal behavior. In addition, it is argued that technical language is not a requirement of precision and logical formulation. Suggestions are made regarding how behavior analysts can generate evidence to better understand explanatory preferences of individuals with various amounts of exposure to behavior analysis. In addition, methods are suggested for introducing behavior analysis to others with vernacular descriptions of behavior and its causes that do not obscure critical distinctions by introducing mental/mediational explanations.

The topic of intention has recently received attention from behavior analysts (Hineline, 2003; Neuman, 2004). From a behavior-analytic perspective, it is important to identify the circumstances in which people utter such terms, and to identify the potential circumstances that maintain such utterances. It follows that from a behavior-analytic perspective, the focus is primarily on those who observe behavior and attribute intentions to that behavior. However, there has not been a distinction between "intention" and "intentionality." The current analysis stresses the distinction between the two terms, both from a traditional point of view (psychologist and layperson) and from a behavior-analytic point of view. From a behavior analyst's perspective, the distinction is important because observers may be responding to distinct functional relations when they attribute intention or intentionality to behavior. (Contains 2 footnotes.)

Byline: Paul Neuman, MD (Department of Orthopedics, Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Malmo, Sweden, paul.neuman@skane.se); Martin Englund, MD, PhD (Department of Orthopedics, Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, Clinical Epidemiology Research [...]

Byline: Ioannis Kostogiannis, MD (Department of Orthopaedics, Lund University, ioannis.kostogiannis@med.lu.se); Eva Ageberg, PT, PhD (Division of Physiotherapy, Lund University, Lund, Sweden); Paul Neuman, MD (Department of Orthopaedics, Lund University); Leif [...]

Background: The activity level and subjective knee function after an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury treated without reconstruction have not been well elucidated. Hypothesis: Patients with ACL injury can achieve [...]

The authors discuss experiments which used pigeons to choose between fixed-ratio and progressive schedules of reinforcement. Methodology, research results and data analysis are included.

Research using concurrent-chains schedules shows that pigeons make choice patterns according to the relative position of food reinforcers in experimental conditions. The sums-of-reciprocals principle was used to calculate choice responses at varying food reinforcer distances. These are shown and discussed. The average median switch points are given.