Distinctions between psychological and radical behaviorism on verbal behavior: An interview with Arthur W. Staats)

Abstract

This article summarizes a number of interviews performed with Arthur W. Staats. For the last fifty years A.W. Staats has made important contributions in developmental psychology, learning psychology, emotional behavior, language, personality and other topics. The aim of the interviews was to extensively discussed his contribution within the study of language behavior. Characteristic aspects of psychological behaviorism language analysis are brought under consideration. In particular, (a) relevance of the three-function theory of stimuli (i.e., conditioned, discriminative and reinforcement functions) with regard to language, (b) language analysis in terms of learned basic behavior repertoires, which include complex learned verbal responses, (c) study of the acquisition and natural functions f language for the individual as the two main spheres to which the study of language should be devoted, (d) historical issues of verbal behavior research from the beginning of the twentieth century until the present, namely, the impact of skinner’s Verbal Behavior (1959) and the Chomsky’s criticism (1959), as well as the influence of other bearing behavioral analysis of language carried out by J Watson, L. Postman, O. H. Mowrer, C. E Osgood, and S.C. Hayes, (e) theoretical distinctions between psychological and radical behaviorism specially with regard to the distinctive language analysis (e.g., rule-governed behavior, behavior-behavior relationships, stimulus equivalence, stablishing operations, are discussed within this context), and (f) brief discussion of applied issues to be derived from the psychological behaviorism analysis of language (e.g., schizophrenic language analysis, children training). Staats concludes that very central emotional and motivational functions should be addressed to language and that in many cases they call for an integrate framework including operant, as well as classical factors. Staats declares that the lack of natural language analysis within the different schools of behaviorism is one of the reasons fro the lack of interest in the subject. He states that psychological behaviorism have proposed theoretical elaborations that have later appeared renamed within a radical behaviorism framework those shall include ambiguities and lack the empirical evidence already available for psychological behaviorism ( among those concepts Staats highlight stimulus equivalence, establishing operations, intelligence, and verbal therapy). According to Staats, the causal links between language and other forms of behavior are very limited within radical behaviorism (e.g., rule-governed behavior, stimulus equivalence and other forms of derived responding) due to the disregard of emotional factors. He stresses the originality of his language analysis which is devoted to the identification of the natural and communicative functions of language.