Strictly speaking, Behaviourism should be considered as the philosophy of the science of
behaviour analysis (Baum 2005). It sets the rules and ideas on how behaviour analysis research is conducted. Within behaviourism as a philosophy of science, there are several philosophical positions that may be adopted, the two most significant of which are the methodological behaviourist stance, and the radical behaviourist stance. These fundamentally relate to the belief in the existence of unobservable factors which may impact on behaviour, and how such
variables, if they do indeed exist, actually influence behaviour. Not to be confused with the theories of behaviourism outlined in chapter 2, Radical Behaviourism and Methodological Behaviourism are but two of many philosophical frameworks for approaching behaviourist research (Staddon 2001). They outline the overarching stance for a researcher, proposing the most suitable way to view subjects and constructs of value to the research.
Having developed alongside behavioural theories, by the behaviourist founders, some philosophical frameworks go hand in hand with certain theories; for example, with Skinner’s Operant Learning and Analysis of Behaviour, favouring his Radical Behavioural perspective; and Watson’s associative learning (classical conditioning), favouring his Methodological Behavioural perspective. The contemporary methodological behaviourist believes that to be scientific in psychological research, only objectively observable and measurable phenomena are to be considered. However, it allows for the possibility that internal processes may present partial explanations of behaviour. The radical behaviourist believes that only objectively observable and measurable phenomena are to be considered, and that any hidden internal processes are
meaningless to analysis of behaviour.
3.1.1 Methodological Behaviourism
Watson’s manifesto suggested that behaviourism should ignore introspection in attempts to explain behaviour (Watson 1913). As the forefather of the methodological behaviourist stance,
143
he believed that methodological behaviourism grounds psychology firmly in science. Watson’s methodological behaviourism purports that mental states and processes should not be examined in the pursuit of behavioural explanation in psychological research, as it provides nothing to aid understanding. Methodological behaviourism places emphasis on using scientific means of enquiry only, using hypothetico-deduction to establish potential explanations of behaviour then subjecting hypothesis to controlled experiments. Tests must be repeatable by other
experimenters, for validation, and results generalisable via inferential statistics to the wider population being studied.
At the centre of the Methodological Behaviourist approach, is the notion that the discipline should take an experimental approach (Watson 1931), be objective, and empirical, and repeatable. In order to do so, the methodological behaviourist stance only allows observable phenomena to be included in scientific enquiry, if they can be ‘operationally defined’, in terms of the associated observable phenomena, and in so doing, be verifiable by other researchers. The approach can be maintained as scientific- empirical, observable and repeatable, as long as the unobserved phenomena to be ‘inferred’ (such as states, mechanism or processes), are defined in operational terms, with respect to the publicly observable phenomena. In this way,
methodological behaviourists can maintain their position as scientists, while allowing for the existence of mental concepts. However, some have criticised this approach, as the theoretical concepts of the unobservable phenomenal belong to a different dimension from the observable phenomena.
3.1.2 Radical Behaviourism
Radical Behaviourism is strictly Monist, discounting the notion of other dimensions, such as the mental dimension allowed by later Methodological Behaviourists. However, the Radical
Behaviourist does not completely ignore the internal processes or ‘behead the organism’
(Skinner 1976), acknowledging physiological stimulation as an important facet of behaviour.
Although the radical behaviourist rejects the concept of dimensions other than the measurable, physical dimension, he accepts that part of the environment is not public, in that it may only be accessible to one organism, yet these private activities (such as thinking, perceiving or recalling) are important not as aspects of a mental dimension, but as part of the behavioural dimension, and can be publicly verifiable under the right conditions. Radical behaviourists are interested in determining which contingencies lead to the development of private phenomena, and how such
144
phenomena influence public behaviour. These internal ‘mental’ phenomena, characteristically private and inaccessible to anything other than the organism being studied, can exist to the radical behaviourist, when they can be described as behavioural components, i.e., in terms of publicly observable behaviour.
From the Radical Behaviourist approach, behaviour is based on the interaction between an organism, and the environment in which it exists (Skinner 1981), and this is the focus of behavioural study. It is not simply a function of the physiology of an organism itself, but the ways in which it interacts with its environment. Skinner proposed that factors in the
surrounding environment could instead be measured to explain behaviour. External or
environmental factors can be manipulated in the laboratory to modify change in behaviour, and this is scientifically measurable.
Radical behaviourists see behaviour as a function of three components- genetic endowment, the material environment, and the social/cultural environment. Behaviour adapts to the changing environment, and those who do not adapt, die out- this is how genetic endowment can
predispose organisms to behave in a certain way. The material environment presents organisms with reinforcements and punishments which shape the organism’s behaviour, and the
social/cultural environment presents social/cultural contingencies which affect the broader behaviour of the social group to which the organism belongs. Thus, behaviour can be categorised at different levels. Phylogenic behaviour is shaped during the history of an organism’s species, while ontogenic behaviour is shaped during the lifetime of the individual organism. Ontogenic behaviour can occur at an individual level, or, at a wider level, as a function of the organism belonging to a social group.
Radical Behaviourism adopts a Pragmatic epistemology, in that it is less interested in what can be learned, than how that knowledge can be put to use for meaningful gain. The emphasis is on the practical applications of the outcome, how enquiry can enable us to make sense of what happens to us. One of the early philosophers to develop the concept of pragmatism was William James (1842-1910), who presented the pragmatic approach as a theory of truth.
Radical behaviourists view language, or ‘verbal behaviour’ as a measurable operant behaviour, which is reinforced by the verbal behaviour of others, and in turn reinforces the behaviour of others. Humans are unique in their ability to communicate with one another via language. A
145
person engaging in verbal behaviour requires a listener to be present to reinforce the behaviour.
The actions of the listener provide the consequences. Verbal behaviour enables humans to pass on advice and information on how to behave. In some situations, behaviour resulting from verbal reinforcement is less powerful than one learned in person. As a preservation mechanism, verbal reinforcement shows as strong a power to affect behaviour as direct reinforcement. A person advised to avoid drinking a poison does so as a self-preservation mechanism. They do not need to experience the effect first hand, or witness its affect on another to avoid it. A consumer who has had a bad experience with a particular shampoo is quite likely to avoid buying that shampoo in future. However, had that consumer not had the bad experience, but instead been advised to avoid a particular shampoo by a friend, because that person had a bad experience, the likelihood of the consumer purchasing that shampoo will probably still decrease, but the effect may not be as long lasting as if it resulted from the consumer’s own negative experience. Out of curiosity, the consumer may eventually decide to try the product for herself.
Radical behaviourists are concerned with using whatever data is available, in an empirical, objective way, to seek knowledge about behaviour. Where there is incomplete data, as there is where unobservable variables are present, radical behaviourists attempt to interpret the data rather than endeavour to predict or control behaviour.
3.1.3 Radical versus Methodological Behavioural Perspectives
Both methodological behaviourists and radical behaviourists agree that many components of behaviour are not publicly observable. The crucial difference between these approaches is that methodological behaviourists argue that these unobservable phenomena are from other dimensions (rather than the behavioural dimension) as they are not apparent to anyone other than the subject, while radical behaviourists reject this, arguing that these private phenomena are still in the physical/material/behaviourist dimension. Radical behaviourists see that
methodological behaviourism, and the concept of mentalism can obscure and misinterpret important facts, and impede the search for genuine variables, making incorrect assumptions which ultimately lead to false accounts for behaviour.
A behavioural approach was deemed appropriate in this study of shopping centre choice, as choices made at all levels, and the types of activities engaged in at shopping centres, appear to change over time, to reflect the experiences and the external conditions that affect the
individual. A behaviour that is constantly changing, that is difficult to be described or explained
146
rationally, is one that is difficult to measure. Formulas of shopping centre choice, like the gravity models and spatial interactions models, have been able to explain and predict shopping
behaviour convincingly, but fail to account for individual differences, or variations in an individual’s perspective depending on their situation. By taking a behavioural approach, it is hoped to explore some factors at work on consumers, and see whether consumers may be affected by them. It was felt that bringing these factors into a more formal, rigid construct would lead to a very constricted view of an ever changing behaviour. Instead, by maintaining a more exploratory approach, it is hoped to avoid any such unyielding analysis.
Radical behavioural approaches to examine complex behaviours often occur as ‘interpretations’.
Rather than attempting to predict and control behaviour, a radical behaviourist approach instead seeks to interpret it (Skinner 1976). This interpretation is concerned with examining the
contingencies that produce a behaviour (Foxall 1999).