Interbehavioral Psychology: How related to the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior?

J. R. Kantor



In this company of psychologists it is highly superogatory to acclaim the great significance of psychological events. We are therefore fully in accord in the belief that psychology should be a science on a par with astronomy, physics, chemistry, and biology.

To achieve this goal psychology must abide by the two following interrelated principles.

1. The avoidance of irrelevant and harmful cultural traditions.
2. The exclusive concern with confrontable events.

In this way and only in this way can we hope for an authentic system of Psychology. Unfortunately to follow the lead of the first principle to be difficult, since mentalistic views persist in dominating the thinking of psychologists even when they are committed to experimental procedures in their work. On the whole it is no easy task to lift psychology out of the psychic morass in which it has been immersed for two thousand years.

From the history of psychology we learn of two revolutionary events which during the present century have helped to free psychology from the stranglehold of mentalism, and to make possible a scientific discipline of psychology. One was the escalation of the various sciences, and the other the establishment of the doctrine of Biological Evolution. The general development of the physicochemical sciences and the various branches of the biological disciplines provided strong incentives and support for the evolution of psychology as a science. The science of physiology turned students of psychological behavior in the direction of understanding the behaving organism and showed the way to experimentation.

It was through the spread of the doctrine of biological continuity that the barrier between the human and nonhuman was removed so that studies of animal behavior could be included as features of the psychological domain.

It is a fair assumption that both the escalation of interest and achievement in science as well as the acceptance of evolutionary principles greatly aided the escape of psychology from the transcendental ideology of the Dark Ages. The freedom was gained to observe and investigate the actions of organisms as naturalistic adaptations to the things and conditions that environ them.

Happily the second principle offers very little resistance. The very presence of such a multiplicity of behavior events of both human and subhuman types almost forced upon psychologists the observational and experimental stimulation to carry on scientific studies.

The realization that a psychological science can be inaugurated on the basis of studying behavior unencumbered by animistic notions has given rise to an antimentalistic movement which became known as Behaviorism. The pivotal point of this movement is the freedom from all preoccupation with internal states, mental or psychic processes or introspective consciousness, all of which are derivations from the intangible, extraspatial soul invented in the dark ages of psychological history.

Now I should like to present a brief and concise sketch of Interbehaviorial Psychology as a systematic type of antimentalism, with which I have been concerned for over half a century.

The basic point of interbehavioral psychology is that every psychological event consists of a complex field comprised of a number of components or factors. These fields are the outgrowth of ecological biology and not of the isolated organismic specializations that go by the name of anatomy and physiology.

Psychological fields represent a fourth evolution following (1) the inorganic, (2) the phylogenetic, (3) the ontogenetic evolutions of organisms and their environing objects and conditions. This series of evolution levels are illustrated in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1:

Fourth Evolution: Interbehavioral History Evolution of acts and traits as responses to objects, conditions, and institutions.
Development of-stimulus and response functions.
Third Evolution: Ontogenetic Evolution Embryological development of individual organisms.
Second Evolution: Phylogenetic Evolution Evolution of organism-environment adjustments and adaptations.
Evolution of species, genera, phyla.
Development of plants, and animals.
First Evolution: Inorganic Evolution Development of the earth.
Evolution of planets and stars.
Development of chemical elements, compounds, and various chemical processes.


It is of the utmost importance to be aware of the details of the behavior segments which are the primary units of psychological event fields. The accompanying diagram (Fig. 2) points to the factors that make up a psychological field.

behavior segment
Fig. 2 Behavior Segment (or Unit Psychological Event)

RB = Reactional Biography;RF = Response Function;
SE = Stimulus Evolution;SF = Stimulus Function

Central to all segments of interbehavior are the interdependent actions or functions of the organism and of the stimulus object.

These actions are mutual and reciprocal, and are usually build up in previous confrontations of the organism and the stimulus object or condition. The reciprocity feature of psychological interbehavior are well represented by the double headed arrow as in Fig. 3.

R<-->S

Next we must take into account the media of contact which constitutes an enabling condition for the interbehavior of organisms and stimulus objects. Examples are the light and air waves which mediate visual and auditory interactions.

An equally important set of factors constitute the setting or framework of the behavior segments. Such are the specific conditions which influence the occurrence or nonoccurrence of a particular interbehavior, and also the specific way the activity is carried out.

Finally, it must be pointed out that each behavior segment is abstracted from the grand continuum of behavior. Accordingly, each segment is derived from and influenced by the previous segments making up the organism's interbehavioral history and exerts important influences upon the immediately following behavior segments.

The precise merits of interbehavioral psychology is a thorougoing naturalism devoid of any transcendental principle, and moreover it is fully capable of adequately treating every type of psychological behavior whether performed by human or on human animals.

At this point we face the question which is frequently posed, concerning the relationship between Interbehavioral Psychology and the movement called The Experimental Analysis of Behavior (EAB). While a number of psychologists have suggested that the EAB movement is directly derived from Interbehavioral Psychology I am loath to endorse this viewpoint. Instead I propose to point out some similarities and some dissimilarities between the two movements. I do so in spite of the fact that since interbehavioral psychology became developed in the early decades of the present century it may appear plausible to believe that EAB was at least partially influenced by that development.

Similarities

Considering the great importance of establishing psychology on a firm scientific basis there can be no greater resemblance between interbehavioral psychology and EAB than the fact that they both are thoroughly antimentalistic. Like interbehavioral psychology EAB strives to eliminate all of the traditional and historical animistic entities whether called "mind", "consciousness", "sensation", or "emotion".

Variances

While from a scientific standpoint the strongest ties bind interbehavioral psychology and EAB together are differences which might be noted. I point some of these out under several headings.

Proximate origin. Interbehavioral psychology originated as the counterpart of the other sciences by selecting as its province the adjustment of organisms to their environing things and events. These adjustments are to be investigated by field observation, experimentation, and naturalistic interpretation. EAB on the other hand may only be regarded as a subdomain of such a naturalistic system of psychology. The record of EAB indicates that the movement found considerable inspiration in the work of Pavlov and other workers in animal conditioning.

Scope. Whereas interbehavioral psychology takes for its province the inquiry into the nature of all psychological events including human as well as nonhuman interbehavior such as perceiving, remembering, feeling, reasoning, and so on, EAB has been on the whole restricted to the study of nonhuman organisms which have lent themselves to the various conditioning techniques. As a distinctive movement in psychology EAB is fairly well confined to learning or behavior modification. When EAB concerns itself with human behavior it gears such events to a conditioning model.

Operational Principles. It is the most salient principle of EAB that organisms perform interactions with stimulus objects primarily on the basis of rewards called reinforcement. In general, organisms are presumed to interact with their surroundings on the basis of powers resident in the environment. The relevant formula is
R=f(S)
.

This involves an unfortunate assumption concerning the causation principle. Neither human nor animal behavior may be interpreted as causes or elicited by stimulus objects as represented by the symbol,

R<--S

or are simply emitted as per the symbol,

R-->S

The symbol for the EAB operational assumption is derived from the contrivances of animal control in experimental learning studies.

The operational principles of interbehavioral psychology are founded upon the postulation that scientific descriptions and interpretations follow from observations made upon interbehavior in free as well as constrained situations. Accordingly, it is not proper to reduce all the various behavioral propositions to an a priori formula even when it fits constrained laboratory situations. In sum, descriptions and interpretations are mainfold when derived from actual confronted events.

Organismic Factors in Psychological Events. As a final suggestion concerning the relationship between interbehavioral psychology and EAB we compare the views of each relative to the organisms that participate in psychological interbehavior.

Since the interbehavioral psychologist regards psychological events as evolved from bioecological events he takes seriously into account the findings of biological science relative to the positive or negative influences of the biological factors that participate in psychological fields. The interbehavioral psychologist recommends an effective orientation with respect to the morphology, physiology, genetics, biochemistry, and ecology of organisms. Acquaintance is imperative with the various biological systems whether muscular, glandular, neural, supportive, or connective.

By comparison EAB tends to concern itself primarily with the abstracted learning relation and the involved constraints. In consequence, EAB when considered as a general psychological movement is restricted and handicapped. Specifically, it disdains to consider all of the numerous informal contacts of organisms with stimulus objects and conditions, the sources of most of the behavioral repertoire of psychological organisms. No less remiss is EAB in exploring the important domain of species-specific activities which can cast much light upon naturalistic psychology.

Conclusion

While considering the relationship of interbehavioral psychology and EAB the question arises as to how one envisages the latter. If one regards it as a unique specialized movement within the general field of psychology one may well assign it an important place in the naturalistic science of interbehavioral psychology. This is not to overlook its historical connections with the physiologically based conditioning movement. Such an assignment is made with the clear view that as an affiliate of Behaviorism its naturalistic aspect signifies only that the behavior of organisms can be studied without resort to mentals of any kind. It is of course a great merit thus to be detached from introspective mentality.

But when EAB is envisaged as a general system of psychology one must stress the point that there are important departures from interbehavioral psychology. Such differences reach back to basic postulation. Interbehavioral psychology does not merely pass by and avoid transcendental entities but rather fortified by a study of institutional and historical origins realizes that psychic processes of every variety are palpable inventions of persons influenced by historically adverse life conditions, and thus are alien to scientific work. Since psychological science has no need to shape its work with respect to nonexisting mind-body or brain-psyche problems all observations and interpretations are directly and exclusively derived from encounters with organism-stimulus object interactions.

An incidental difference between interbehavioral psychology concerns the question of control vis-à-vis understanding. Whereas EAB stresses control à outrance making it a principle of operation and interpretation, interbehavioral psychology leans toward understanding as a value in itself and as an essential propadeutic to all significant control.