The Elephant in the Field.

The recent series of papers between Sampaio and Haydu (Behavior and Social Issues 32(1):115–133, 2023a; Behavior and Social Issues 32(1):141–146, 2023b) and Ardila-Sánchez and Hayes (Behavior and Social Issues 32(1):134–140, 2023) on the cultural milieu construct is of critical import for culturo-behavior science. By constructing a revised version of Houmanfar and colleagues' (Ardila-Sánchez et al., Behavior and Social Issues 28(1):298–315, 2019: Houmanfar, Ardila-Sánchez, & Alavosius, Behavior science perspectives on culture and community, pp. 151–170, Springer, 2020: Houmanfar & Rodrigues, Behavior and Social Issues, 15(1):13–30, 2006: Houmanfar, Rodrigues, & Ward, Behavior and Social Issues 19(1):78–103, 2010) elaborated metacontingency model, Sampaio and Haydu address confusion inherent in the concept of the cultural milieu by separating it into two different components—cultural antecedents and selecting environment variables—with different functional properties. This allows the cultural milieu to be conceptualized more coherently within a behavior-analytic framework, a framework into which the cultural milieu does not quite fit when described in interbehavioral terms. However, given differences in integrated field and contingency logic, an interbehaviorally conceptualized cultural milieu does not belong in any metacontingency model, elaborated or otherwise. The purpose of this paper is to address this issue—the elephant in the field—and confusing aspects of the cultural milieu that Sampaio and Haydu do not address when one considers the elaborated metacontingency model from an interbehavioral perspective. In doing so, I discuss issues with the model warranting attention and the prospect of a unified culturo-behavior science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]