Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:03:27.839Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Cognitive Behaviour Modification is not - a Reply to Marzillier

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2009

Chris Cullen  and
Chris Gathercole
Chris Cullen
Affiliation:
Bryn-y-Heuadd Hospital.
Chris Gathercole
Affiliation:
Bryn-y-Heuadd Hospital.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

John Marzillier (BABP last issue) has taken exception to our review of Mahoney's Cognition and Behaviour Modification and it behooves us to add a note in defence or justification. The most cogent way of doing this is to comment in turn on each of the major points made by Marzillier.

Type
Articles
Information
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , July 1976 , pp. 53 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies 1976

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

Catania, A.C. Elicitation, reinforcement, and stimulus control. In. Glaser, R. (Ed.) The nature of learning. New York. Academic Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Catania, A.C.The psychologies of structure, function, and development. American Psychologist, 1973, 28, 434–443.Google Scholar
Cullen, C.N., Hattersley, J. and Tennant, L.Behaviour modification: some implications of a radical behaviourist view. Bull. of the Brit. Psychol. Soc., 1976, in press.Google Scholar
Dulany, D.E. Awareness, rules and propositional control: a confrontation with S - R behaviour theory. In. Dixon, T.R. and Horton, D.L. (Eds.), Verbal behaviour and general behaviour theory. Engelwood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1968.Google Scholar
Goldiamond, I.Alternative sets as a framework for behavioural formulation and research. Behaviourism, 1975, 3, 49–86.Google Scholar
Hocutt, M.On the alleged circularity of Skinner's concept of stimulus. Psychol. Rev., 1967, 74, 530–532.Google Scholar
MacCorquodale, K.On Chomsky's review of Skinner's Verbal Behaviour. Jour of the Exper. Anal, of Behav., 1970, 13, 83.Google Scholar
MacCorquodale, K. and Meehl, P.E.Hypothetical constructs and intervening variables. Psychol. Rev., 1948, 55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLeish, J.Learning in groups: facilitation and inhibition processes. Bull. of the Brit. Psychol. Soc., 1976, 29, 7–15.Google Scholar
McLeish, J. and Martin, J.Verbal behaviour: a review and experimental analysis. Jour. of General Psychol., 1975, 93, 3–66.Google Scholar
Mahoney, M.J.Cognition and behaviour modification. Cambridge Mass: Ballinger, 1974.Google Scholar
Schoenfeld, W.N. and Cole, B.K.Stimulus schedules: the T-T systems. New York: Harper and Row, 1972.Google Scholar
Skinner, B.F.Science and human behaviour. New York: MacMillan, 1953.Google Scholar
Skinner, B.F.Verbal behaviour. New York: Appleton - Century - Crofts, 1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, B.F.About behaviourism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1974.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S.The philosophy of science. London: Hutchinson, 1953.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.