David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Behavior and Philosophy 32 (1):197 - 229 (2004)
The operant contingency remains the most powerful and flexible single technology for the production and control of purposive behavior. The immediate aim of this paper is to examine the conceptual and empirical adequacy of the operant contingency as the basis for a science of purposive behavior. My longer-term goal is to improve the effectiveness of operant contingencies and our understanding of how and why they work. I explore three aspects of the operant contingency: its development as a closed definitional system, its empirical adequacy as a technology, and the appropriateness and usefulness of related theoretical assumptions. I conclude that the efficacy of the operant contingency can be improved further by continued analysis of its implementation, mechanisms, and assumptions and by increasing its links to other approaches and concepts.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Jon D. Ringen (1976). Explanation, Teleology, and Operant Behaviorism. Philosophy of Science 43 (June):223-253.
Emilio Ribes-Iñesta (2003). What Is Defined in Operational Definitions? The Case of Operant Psychology. Behavior and Philosophy 31:111 - 126.
Douglas V. Porpora (1980). Operant Conditioning and Teleology. Philosophy of Science 47 (4):568-582.
Roy A. Moxley (1996). The Import of Skinner's Three-Term Contingency. Behavior and Philosophy 24 (2):145 - 167.
Frances K. McSweeney & Kenjiro Aoyama (2001). Evolution and Operant Behavior, Metaphor or Theory? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):545-546.
Edmund Fantino & Stephanie Stolarz-Fantino (2000). Fish Displaying and Infants Sucking: The Operant Side of the Social Behavior Coin. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (2):254-255.
François Tonneau & Michel B. C. Sokolowski (2001). Is Operant Selectionism Coherent? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):558-559.
Todd Grantham (2001). Do Operant Behaviors Replicate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):538-539.
Julian C. Leslie (2001). Selection in Operant Learning May Fit a General Model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):542-543.
J. Moore (2001). Operant Behavior and the Thesis of “Selection by Consequences”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):546-547.
John D. Baldwin (2000). Let's Go All the Way – and Include Operant and Observational Learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (2):249-250.
Randolph C. Grace & John A. Nevin (2004). Behavioral Momentum and Pavlovian Conditioning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (5):695-697.
Claudia D. Cardinal, Matthew E. Andrzejewski & Philip N. Hineline (2000). Is the Avoiding of Operant Theory a Pavlovian Conditioned Response? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (2):252-253.
Samir Okasha (2001). “Which Processes Are Selection Processes?”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):548-549.
Added to index2011-05-29
Total downloads9 ( #163,591 of 1,099,959 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #90,379 of 1,099,959 )
How can I increase my downloads?