Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T00:44:40.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Behavioural Analysis And Cognition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2009

Mark Burton
Mark Burton
Affiliation:
Department of Psycbiatry, University of Mancbester.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recent articles in this journal have argued for and against the admission of cognitive concepts in discussion of behavioural therapies. The intention of this article is to clarify some of the issues and hence to try and reduce some of the confusion.

Much of the confusion stems from a misunderstanding of behaviourism, particularly of the approach variously called radical, analytical, or systematic behaviourism. This approach, associated with Skinner in particular, must be clearly demarcated from methodological behaviourism which simply distinguishes between the public and the private, and then studies only the former, thus maintaining a dualist ontology between the physical and the mental. Analytical behaviourism, on the other hand, only accepts the existence of the physical, but also distinguishes between the public and the private (Skinner, 1945, 1953, 1964).

Type
Research Article
Information
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , April 1978 , pp. 37 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cullen, C. et al. Reply to Marzillier. B.A.B.P. Bulletin 1976Google Scholar
Day, W.F.Radical behaviorism in reconciliation with phenomenology. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 1969, 12, 315–328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giorgi, A.Convergences and divergences between phenomenological psychology and behaviorism: a beginning dialogue. Behaviorism 1975, 3, 200–212.Google Scholar
Mead, G.H.Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago; Chicago University Press, 1934.Google Scholar
Meichenbaum, D. Self-instructional methods. in Kanfer, F.H. and Goldstein, A.P., eds., Helping People Change, N.Y.; Pergamon, 1975.Google Scholar
Rachlin, H.A review of M.J. Mahoney's “Cognition and Behavior Modification”. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1977, 10, 369–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salzinger, K.Inside the black box. A review of Ulric Neisser's “Cognitive Psychology”. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 1973, 19, 369–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, E. Toward a coherent psychology of language. In Honig, W. and Staddon, J., eds., Handbook of Operant Behavior N.Y.; Prentice Hall, 1977.Google Scholar
Skinner, B.F.The operational analysis of psychological terms. Psychological Review 1945, 52, 270–277, and 291–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, B.F.Science and Human Behavior N.Y.; Free Press, 1953.Google Scholar
Skinner, B.F. Behaviorism at fifty. in Wann, T.W., ed., Behaviorism and Phenomenology Chicago; Chicago University Press, 1964.Google Scholar
Skinner, B.F.The phylogeny and ontogeny of behavior. Science 1966, 153, 1205–1213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.