Sdf af a ffrhsd hhe

The Behavior Analyst

1991, 14, 145-155

No. 2 (Fall)

The Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior: Indispensable, Ancillary, or Irrelevant?
Alan Baron University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Michael Perone West Virginia University Mark Galizio University of North Carolina at Wilmington
There is growing recognition that psychology as a whole is in an extraordinary state of transition. Thechanges have farreaching implications for the experimental analysis of behavior, not only for the theoretical interpretations that guide our research but also for the methods we use to collect and analyze the data. That methods of behavior analysis should change over the years is not of itself remarkable. History tells us that evolution, if not revolution, is part of the normal course of thedevelopment of a science. What is remarkable is that many of these changes are taking place without full acknowledgment or discussion. This has given rise to a lack of correspondence between what is said and what is done. We continue to advocate to our students a set of laboratory procedures, experimental designs, and data-analytic strategies derived from those developed in the animal laboratories fromwhich behavior
This article was prompted by a series of commentaries (Branch, 1991; Buskist, Newland, & Sherbume, 1991; Dinsmoor, 1991; Palmer & Donahoe, 1991; Pierce & Epling, 1991; Shull & Lawrence, 1991; Wanchisen & Tatham, 1991) that were written in response to a previous article of ours (Baron, Perone, & Galizio, 1991). We thank the commentators for their scholarly attention to the issues weraised and Editor Samuel M. Deitz for giving us the opportunity to engage in this stimulating dialogue. Addresses for correspondence and reprint requests: Alan Baron, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 53201; Michael Perone, Department of Psychology, West Virginia University, Morgantown WV 26506; Mark Galizio, Department of Psychology, University of NorthCarolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, NC 28406.

analysis emerged (Ferster, 1953; Perone, in press; Sidman, 1960; Skinner, 1956). But these methodological prescriptions-the customs and codes that distinguish behavior analysis from the rest of psychology -are increasingly violated, ironically, in favor of the very methods to which the founders of behavior analysis objected (Baron, 1990). The purpose ofour target article (Baron, Perone, & Galizio, 199 1) was to stimulate discussion ofthis troublesome state of affairs. We are honored that such a distinguished group ofscientists has seen fit to offer their comments in this issue of The Behavior Analyst. Their reasoned arguments will make a significant contribution to the eventual resolution of the issues raised in our article. We regret that thespace allotted to us does not permit a response to each and every one of their points. We believe that we can best proceed by trying to integrate our concerns. The outcome, we hope, will be the start of a dialogue that will help us find common ground.
THE PLACE OF THE HUMAN SUBJECT A good place to begin is with what appears to be a misunderstanding. As indicated by its title, our article askedwhether application and behavioristic interpretation can replace laboratory research with humans. Our efforts to answer this question led us to assert that laboratory research is an essential tool in the analysis of the reinforcement process on the human level. We also commented on some rarely acknowledged limitations

145

146

ALAN BARON et al. with humans and animals should proceed inparallel, with each informing the other. In a similar vein, Buskist et al. see discrepancies between experimental outcomes with humans and animals as a challenge, not as a reason for abandoning the laboratory approach. The differences will serve as a spur for clarifying the operation ofbasic processes in the two cases. Shull and Lawrence also assert that human research is capable of revealing...