Home Uncategorized Behaviorism and Social Cognitive Theories

Uncategorized

Behaviorism and Social Cognitive Theories

Prior to beginning work on this discussion, please read and view the following required sources:

The importance of a deeper knowledge of the history and theoretical foundations of behavior analysis: 1863–1960
The Importance of a Deeper Knowledge of the History and Theoretical Foundations of Behaviorism and Behavior Therapy: Part 2—1960–1985
John B. Watson – The Father of Behaviourism
Bandura’s Social Cognitive theory: An Introduction

In your initial post, include the following:

Summarize the foundational approaches of behavior analysis (previously known as behaviorism) and social cognitive (previously known as social learning) theory (SCT) and the early theorists associated with Be sure to note the drastic differences between behaviorist theories versus cognitivist theories.
Describe how the two theories might be utilized in practice in the career path that interests you.
If you are not pursuing a career field, how might it apply to your daily personal interactions?
Evaluate the cultural considerations that should be considered when applying these theories in research today?
Example: Social cognitive theory suggests modeling and efficacy as key variables that determine behavior. How might culture affect how we analyze these variables? How could self-bias affect our research findings if not considered?

Save Time On Research and Writing

Hire a Pro to Write You a 100% Plagiarism-Free Paper.

Get My Paper

Your initial post should be a minimum of 500 words.

The Importance of a Deeper Knowledge of the History and
Theoretical Foundations of Behavior Analysis: 1863–1960

John M. Guercio
Benchmark Human Services, St. Louis, Missouri

The present article argues for the greater examination of the importance of studying
the historical foundations of the field of applied behavior analysis (ABA). The
increased volume of students in the behavior analysis field over the last 10 years
underscores the need to emphasize the historical, scientific, and philosophical
foundations that have made the field so strong. The philosophy of science of
behaviorism and ABA was linked to several disciplines initially, and evolved into
a role in the field of psycholog

A detailed justification for the study of the history
and philosophy of a science of behavior is presented and will flow into the earliest
origins of behaviorism and the maturation of the field. Current financial contin-
gencies have resulted in the misperception that the ABA field is primarily targeted
at behavioral challenges related to the mitigation of autism spectrum disorder. As
a consequence, there has been a departure from the philosophical and conceptual
aspects of behavior analysis. A departure from the philosophical and scientific
underpinnings of the field can prove problematic in the long run. This article will
detail the contributions of the pioneers in the field, and end at the beginning of the
second generation of behavior therapy in the early 1960s. Discussion of the
foundations of behavior analysis will help new practitioners and students of
behavior analysis to better appreciate the intellectual depth of the field.

Keywords: history of behavior analysis, theory, behavior analysis graduate training,
philosophy of science, behaviorism

The field of applied behavior analysis (ABA)
has significantly grown in the last 10 years
(Guercio & Murray, 201

). Some recent reports
on the proliferation of new students into the
field shows that there were 7,419 certified be-
havior analysts documented in 2011. This num-
ber increased to over 14,000 by the year 2014
(see www.BACB.com). The drastic increases in
the demand for behavioral services has led to
significant growth in board certified behavior
analyst (BCBA) course sequence curriculum
that provides the requisite training for the pro-
fession (Dixon, Reed, Smith, Belisle, & Jack-
son, 2015).

There are presently over 200 colleges and
universities across the world that offer course

sequences that are approved by the Behavior
Analyst Certification Board (BACB). The sheer
volume of these programs should compel us to
institute some manner of quality control and
rigor related to the material that is presented
(Dixon et al., 2015). There has been a recent
call in the field to develop some type of metric
for evaluating ABA training programs. Dixon
and colleagues (2015) detail the process of pro-
gram accreditation that the Association for Be-
havior Analysis International (ABAI) has had in
place since 1974. This process takes into ac-
count the accreditation procedure that is used by
ABAI that takes into consideration a number of
factors including; curriculum, graduate employ-
ment rates, faculty curriculum vitae, and student
progress (Dixon et al., 2015). All of these are
important aspects of a well-grounded discipline
based in the philosophy of science and the de-
velopment of a science of human behavior that
Skinner envisioned (Skinner, 1938, 1954).
There is a danger that our pedagogical standards
and instructional content will change due to the

Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to John M. Guercio, Clinical Services – Behavior
Analysis & Therapy, Benchmark Human Services, 1215
Fern Ridge Parkway #204, St. Louis, Missouri 63141.
E-mail: johnmguercio@gmail.com

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t

is
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
P

sy
ch

ol
og

ic
al

A
ss

oc
ia

ti
on

or
on

e
of

it
s

al
li

ed
pu

bl
is

he
rs

.
T

hi
s

ar
ti

cl
e

is
in

te
nd

ed
so

le
ly

fo
r

th
e

pe
rs

on
al

us
e

of
th

e
in

di
vi

du
al

us
er

an
d

is
no

t
to

be
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
br

oa
dl

Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice © 2018 American Psychological Association
2018, Vol. 18, No. 1, 4 –15 2372-9414/18/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bar0000123

http://www.BACB.com

mailto:johnmguercio@gmail.com

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bar0000123

increasing volume of students and market
driven force. It is unfortunate that many practi-
tioners in behavior analysis today are pigeon
holed, so to speak, into having expertise primar-
ily in the assessment and treatment of autism
spectrum disorders (ASDs). Behavior analysis
is so much more than that. Though this is an
important realm of what we do, it is not all that
we do, nor have done. The clear and present
danger that is present is a market-driven curric-
ulum based on a narrow focus on ASD. Rather
than an ASD curriculum, applied behavior anal-
ysis (ABA) programs would be better served by
a curriculum that is as rigorous as possible by
incorporating courses in the philosophy of a
science of behavior and essential readings in
behavior analysis. Students should be well
versed in the diversity of applications of ABA
and behavior therapy. All undergraduate psy-
chology programs have history courses that ori-
ent students to the schools of thought from its
inception to contemporary 21st century intellec-
tual foundations and theories inherent to the
field. A narrow focused, market-driven training
sequence limits the extent to which behavior
analysis will have an impact on society at all
levels. The study of the history and philosoph-
ical foundations of behavior analysis are crucial
to the training program of any behavior analyst.
The interventions that we presently use in prac-
tice are built from the history of our science and
we would be remiss to neglect them. A shift
does appear to be occurring with respect to how
we train behavior analysts in our academic set-
tings. The course sequences approved by the
BACB for graduate programs in ABA will have
new requirements that focus on the philosophy
of science and the historical foundations of the
field of behavior analysis.

The BACB published its new fifth edition
of coursework requirements in April of 2017
that will be implemented in 2022. Significant
additions have been made to the content area
of principles and concepts. Within these re-
quirements there have been additions made to
the preexisting content area of concepts and
principles of behavior analysis. This content
area currently requires approved course se-
quences to contain 45 hr of instruction that
falls within this content area. Such a move
emphasizes the increasing importance of
training in the philosophy of science of be-

havior analysis. Such a focus brings with it an
historical context.

Importance of the History of
Behavior Analysis

Why study history? The American Psycho-
logical Association (APA) has described a com-
pelling set of reasons to study history with re-
spect to specific scientific disciplines (see www
.apa.org/monitor/2010/02/history.aspx). The
area of learning and conditioning, that is, be-
havior analysis remains a sub discipline of psy-
chology, for example, Division 25 of the APA.
For that reason alone, the history of behavior
analysis should have closer scrutiny in graduate
training programs.

Benefit to the Discipline of
Behavior Analysis

Study of the history of behavior analysis is a
pertinent field of study and relevant to the fur-
ther evolution of behavior analysis training pro-
grams. Studying the history will illuminate the
evolution of the science of behavior. The his-
tory of the field should illuminate those study-
ing it as to the reasons that the conventional
methods used in psychology were not effective
and that and an alternative approach was nec-
essary. The conceptualization of “mental disor-
ders” occurring as a function of environmental
variables was an important transition and radi-
cal departure from the mentalistic conceptions
of psychological disorders and how they should
be treated. One of the most pertinent reasons for
the study of the history of the behavior analysis
is the prevalence in the field of focusing on
subject matter that is represented in the BACB
exam as opposed to delving deeply into the
work of the early contributors in the field. Be-
havior analysis as a field was made possible
through the pursuit of a science of behavior as
opposed to an amalgam of poorly defined con-
structs that were not amenable to accurate mea-
surement. John B. Watson (1924) proposed his
viewpoint on the basis of these early tenets of
the behavioral revolution, stating that “Psychol-
ogy as the behaviorist views it is a purely ob-
jective, experimental branch of natural science”
(p. 158).

The evolution of the behavior therapies is one
with a rich and variegated history that, as be-

5THE IMPORTANCE OF HISTORY

T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/02/history.aspx

havior analysts, behooves us to become familiar
with. As students and practitioners of behavior
analysis, we should be aware of the pioneers in
the field. B.F. Skinner’s early work was done in
university physiology and biology departments.
Our field is an extensive one with a very broad
reach. Coleman (1988) gives us a multitude of
reasons for making direct contact with the his-
tory of behavioral psychology and the evolution
of the field of ABA.

Relation Between the History and
Philosophy of the Science of Behavior

By studying our past at a deeper level, we can
better understand the important work that has
been done in our field. Increased awareness of
the pioneering contributors to behavior analysis
will help to avoid many future headaches when
we are put in positions to defend the practice
and science of our discipline. Many students of
behavior analysis study furiously to pass their
certification exam, but may miss the intellectual
backdrop to the interventions that they are de-
scribing in rote fashion.

William Baum recently expounded on the
importance of a thorough knowledge of the
conceptual basis of ABA (W. Baum, personal
communication, May, 29, 2017). He under-
scored the importance of being able to explicate
the theoretical basis of our field as opposed to
just using a “bag of tricks” in our repertoire of
interventions. A strong foundation in concep-
tual issues allows the practitioner to approach
issues from a scientific vantage point. This van-
tage point facilitates better problem solving be-
havior when things go wrong. Conceptually
grounded scientists can troubleshoot to deter-
mine methodological and clinical flaws. A thor-
ough background in the history of behavior
analysis can buttress us with a conceptual and
theoretical learning history upon which we can
draw. Clinicians need to be aware not just that
differential reinforcement of alternative be-
havior works, but why you use it and why it
works as well. The ideas that we have built
upon can inform our present decisions. Our
history can also be argued to help us to be-
come aware of the past and expand our cur-
rent capabilities as a result. The current the-
ories and intellectual debates in our field are
built largely upon the work of our forefathers
such as Skinner, Keller, Schoenfeld, and oth-

ers. The strong reliance on scientific method
can direct our efforts away from non-
evidenced-based treatment approaches.

Massive swings of opinion have occurred in
the history of behaviorism and we should be
aware of what occasions them and what their
consequences have been. Skinner long ago
pointed out the fact that contingencies of rein-
forcement are ubiquitous. His vision was to
have society realize the fact that a science of
behavior can help us to maintain a more func-
tional society as well as strengthening most of
the institutions inherent in our society (Skinner,
1987). Those studying behavior analysis would
benefit from being familiar with these aspira-
tions in order to realize the impact that can be
made using a science of behavior.

Our work is cumulative and the need to ac-
knowledge that is significant. Students would
benefit from poring over the literature and fa-
miliarizing themselves with our intellectual
foundations. The formation and evolution of
different theories of learning and how they have
been applied have made a huge impact in be-
havior analysis to date. It is difficult to describe
the excitement that can arise when some of the
hidden gems of our vast literature are discov-
ered and appreciated for the significance that
they hold. The remainder of this article details
the evolution of the field of behaviorism.

By expanding on our current knowledge base
we are able to incorporate behavior analysis into
areas that have never encountered our science,
but can benefit, even on a societal and cultural
level (Biglan, 2015). A stronger reliance on the
history of our discipline will help to strengthen
the field as new practitioners of our science
emerge.

Recent divides in our field regarding the prac-
tice of behavior analysis versus the science of
behavior analysis is a case in point. We want to
make sure that the business of behavior analysis
does not trump the science of behavior analysis.
History can provide us with several stepping
stones to building the virtues humility and tol-
erance that are needed in our field as we interact
with other disciplines. We have not done well
with this historically and need to improve on
this and look at it as a lesson in sobriety. By
becoming familiar with our concepts, events,
and cultural landmarks, we can become better
acquainted with this material and possibly con-
tribute to it.

6 GUERCIO

The detailed history that is presented in this
article should serve as a guide to those inter-
ested in the field of ABA that the discipline
offers a broad conceptual base. The licensure
movement for applied behavior analysts has
slowly spread across the nation (Guercio &
Murray, 2014). It is our job as behavior analysts
to provide an accurate yet thorough history of
the field to the growing number of people en-
tering it.

Conceptual and Philosophical
Underpinnings

The history of behaviorism and the emer-
gence of the science of behavior is rich and
extensive. The star that was to become behavior
analysis shown brightly at the turn of the 20th
century.

Psychology as a Behaviorist Views It

The work of John B. Watson (1878 –1958) is
looked at by many of as the foundational work
in behaviorism. He was responsible for serving
as the catalyst for the objective examination of
behavior. He firmly believed that once one erad-
icated all references to consciousness, a better
formulation of psychological processes in par-
ticular, and behavior in general, would result.
His classic stance on an objective approach and
his view of behaviorism is evidenced in the
following passage from his seminal work, Be-
haviorism (Watson, 1924):

Psychology as the behaviorist views it is a purely
objective experimental branch of natural science. Its
theoretical goal is the prediction and control of behav-
ior. Introspection forms no essential part of its meth-
ods, nor is the scientific value of its data dependent
upon the readiness with which they lend themselves to
interpretation in terms of consciousness. The behavior-
ist, in his efforts to get a unitary scheme of animal
response, recognizes the dividing line between man
and brute. The behavior of man, with all of its refine-
ment and complexity, forms only a part of the behav-
iorist’s total scheme of investigation. (p. 158)

The science of behavior has its roots in the
operant research of B.F. Skinner which has led
to the development of ABA. The work of John
B. Watson (1878 –1958) had a profound impact
on Skinner’s work (Watson, 1924). Skinner’s
approach was so named based on the fact that
behavior “operates” on the environment in or-
der to produce the outcome that is the most

advantageous to the human organism. The sci-
ence of behavior that has evolved out of his
work is the application of philosophical rules to
discover knowledge. The application of the sci-
ence of behavior has fallen under the headings
of behavior therapy, behavior modification, and
behavior analysis to name just a scant few
(O’Donahue, Henderson, Hayes, Fisher, &
Haye, 2001).

Natural Science Influences

The Russians. Some of the earliest work
that was done and would contribute to the sci-
ence of behavior was conducted in Russia. The
early work of the Russian physiologists Ivan M.
Sechenov, Ivan Pavlov, and Vladimir M. Bech-
terev served as the foundation upon which the
theories and practice of behavior analysis and
learning was built. Most people are familiar
with the work of Pavlov, but are not aware of
the earlier contributions of Sechenov and Bech-
terev (Kazdin, 1978). The most significant con-
tributions that were made by theses scientists
was their consistent use of operational defini-
tions and their strict mechanistic interpretation
or operational definitions of what had been
termed subjective processes up to that time.

Their training in physiology led to a predi-
lection for scientific experimentation and anal-
ysis of processes. This led to an objective for-
mulation of their findings and the application of
such an approach to the field of learning in
psychology. Sechenov (1829 –1905) completed
most of his medical training in Russia and
through his travels to Germany, Austria and
France, he was exposed to the work of Johannes
Muller, Karl Ludwig, and Claude Bernard.
Sechenev’s work led to him being called “the
father of Russian physiology.” He regarded the
field of psychology as an “inexact science” and
wanted to lend the objective methods of physi-
ology to the study of psychological processes.
His statement, “the initial cause of human ac-
tion lies outside of man,” (Sechenov, 1965)
reflects that into which the science of behavior
would ultimately evolve. His studies showed
that the complex behavior of humans could be
described as being acquired through learning.
This thesis is consistent with the findings of
another great Russian scientist, Ivan Pavlov.

Pavlov (1849 –1936) was on the faculty of
the Military Medical Academy of St. Peters-

7THE IMPORTANCE OF HISTORY

burg. His main area of study was digestion and
digestive processes. Through the measurement
of saliva volume and its production, he was able
to produce one of the earliest learning theories
in behaviorism.

One of the observations made by Pavlov was
that an animal tended to produce more saliva if
it was able to see the food that was being placed
into its stomach surgically than if it did not. He
also noted that salivation took place in the pres-
ence of the experimenter as well (Pavlov, 1906,
1932). These responses were ruled out as being
hereditary because they were related to the ex-
periences of the animal in his laboratory (learn-
ing history). The preparation and results of his
experiments ultimately led to the theory of re-
spondent conditioning. The salivation response
the animals displayed in the presence of food (a
primary reinforcer or unconditioned stimulus)
allowed extension of the relationship between
the food and salivation to another stimulus. An
eliciting stimulus (the food) had to be present to
observe these responses. These distinctions
were clarified by Skinner years later (Kazdin,
1978). The findings that Pavlov detailed in-
cluded taking his observations of an animal
salivating in the presence of a tone, or the sight
of the experimenter (stimuli that were condi-
tioned or paired with unconditioned stimuli)
and calling them conditional (conditioned)
stimuli as a result. This new process formula-
tion of how a previously neutral stimulus could
produce similar behavioral responses to stimuli
it had been paired with it now offered a learning
theory account of abnormal behavior (Pavlov,
1906). This new process by which learning
could occur would be used by many behavior
therapists to explain how new fears have been
conditioned and why avoidance responses may
have crept into a person’s repertoire seemingly
out of nowhere. The role of the Russian physi-
ologists in the evolution of the science of be-
havior was vast. Another member of this elite
group was Vladimir Bechterev.

Bechterev (1857–1927) was primarily inter-
ested in anatomy and physiology of the brain
and the spinal cord. He also ventured out into
the various mental and nervous diseases and
their treatment (Kazdin, 1978). Building upon
the work of Pavlov, he paired an aversive stim-
ulus such as an electric shock with various
neutral stimuli to determine the effects of such
a pairing. This line of research helped to unify

the research orientation of both Pavlov and
Bechterev in their total rejection of using sub-
jectivism to explain any psychological phenom-
ena. The concepts and procedures of both men
were later observed in the work of their coun-
terparts in other parts of the world.

Biology and Mechanics

One of the hallmarks of behavior analysis is
a commitment to experimental control. This tra-
dition arose as much from the field of engineer-
ing and biology as it did in the science of
behavior. Jacques Loeb, a German scientist,
came to the United States in 1891. His influence
on the development of behaviorism was signif-
icant and can be seen in the writings of many of
the early proponents of behaviorism such as
Watson and Skinner. Loeb’s writings influenced
W. J. Crozier who was an early mentor of
Skinner. Most of those familiar with Loeb’s
work have heard of his studies on tropisms and
how providing different sources of stimulation
led to orienting responses in different organ-
isms.

Loeb’s work on tropisms led him to describe
his approach to science which was very hands
on and that placed the control of one’s subject
matter above formal theory testing as one of the
primary aims of science (Hackenberg, 1995).
The similarities in scientific approach and pre-
diction and control, which Skinner espoused,
can be seen in the following quote from Loeb:
“‘Instinct’ and ‘will’ in animals, as causes
which determine movements, stand upon the
same plane as the supernatural powers of theo-
logians, which are also said to determine mo-
tions, but upon which an engineer could not
well rely . . .” (Hackenberg, 1995, p. 230).

Both Skinner and Loeb rejected mentalistic
explanations for phenomenon stating that they
were beyond the reach of experimental control
and were unsatisfactory explanations as a result
(Hackenberg, 1995). This insistence on predic-
tion and control was a strong influence both on
Watson and Skinner in their theories of behav-
ior. Investigations into the contributions of
some of the theorists in the natural sciences
contributed to the refinement of theories of be-
havior.

Ernst Mach has been described as one of the
most influential figures of the 19th century
(Marr, 1985). His work paved the way for the

8 GUERCIO

construction of a scientific framework for both
physics and psychology in the 20th century.
Skinner was introduced to Mach’s The Science
of Mechanics while at Harvard. This book
would ultimately shape Skinner’s thesis and
exerted significant influence on Skinner’s scien-
tific behavior throughout his career. Mach
(1960) succinctly described his approach in the
introduction to his book The Science of Me-
chanics:

The history of the development of mechanics is quite
indispensable to a full comprehension of the science in
its present condition. It also affords a simple and in-
structive example of the processes by which natural
science is developed. (p. 1)

Mach (1960) looked at the operational defi-
nition in science as “the outcome of such an
endeavor to establish the interdependence of
phenomena and to remove all metaphysical ob-
scurity” (p. 22). This line of thought has become
the cornerstone of the science of behavior, and
the guide by which it has conducted scientific
inquiry. The future development of the science
of behavior is based upon these precepts as we
can see in the work of Edward Thorndike.

Early Experimental Demonstrations

The use of animals to discover the immutable
laws of behavior did not stop with Pavlov.

Trial-and-Error Learning

In the United States, Edward L. Thorndike
(1874 –1949) used chicks, dogs, fish, and mon-
keys, though his most famous work was done
with cats. He carefully constructed what he
called “puzzle boxes” that contained certain
means of escape for the cat placed in the box.
As cats were placed in the boxes, they had been
exposed to varying lengths of food deprivation.
Thorndike (1911) found that the cats engaged in
a variety of trial-and-error learning in order to
escape. The time that it took to escape de-
creased significantly over the course of a num-
ber of trials. Thorndike’s theory emphasized
that the consequences of behavior either
strengthened or weakened what he called “con-
nections.” It was not long before a synthesis of
the approaches proposed by Pavlov and
Thorndike was developed.

Skinner was familiar with the work of Pavlov
while he was an undergraduate. His response to

the respondent conditioning model can be seen
from the following passage from his book The
Behavior of Organisms:

Operant behavior with its unique relation to the envi-
ronment presents a separate important field of investi-
gation. The facts of respondent behavior which have
been regarded as fundamental data in a science of
behavior (Sherrington, Pavlov, and others) are, as we
have seen, not to be extrapolated usefully to behavior
as a whole nor do they constitute any very large body
of information that is of value in the study of operant
behavior. (Skinner, 1938, p. 438)

Emergence of Operant Conditioning

Skinner’s exposure to Bertrand Russell and
John Watson’s book, Behaviorism, while he
was an undergraduate, served as an impetus for
him to find out more about Watson’s work and
behaviorism. A professor in the department of
physiology at Harvard, W. J. Crozier, influ-
enced Skinner’s approach to research through
his emphasis on a “strong base of empirically
established relationships” (Skinner, 1979). This
would serve as the basis of Skinner’s research
model and an inductive versus deductive ap-
proach to science for the rest of his career. In
Skinner’s view, there was a great deal of behav-
ior that could not be accounted for through
respondent conditioning processes. Thus, his
concept of the operant was born.

Skinner used a variety of apparatus to inves-
tigate the behavior of lower organisms. He used
pigeons and rats for the majority of his studies.
Because of his extensive interest in tinkering
and working with objects to build his own ap-
paratus, he was constantly trying to develop
new devices to investigate the environmental
effects on behavior. One of his most famous
devices employed a horizontal bar that a rat
pressed for food. The delivery of food was
related to the responses of the rat. In Skinner’s
conception of the operant conditioning process,
increases in responding by the organism pro-
duced some preferred event. The event that
Skinner used most was the provision of food
contingent upon lever pressing. The variety of
schedules of reinforcement and a detailed anal-
ysis of the extensive principles of operant con-
ditioning are beyond the scope of this article but
contributed significantly to our understanding
of human behavior. Skinner’s work on the op-
erant conditioning paradigm provides a great
deal of insight when we examine competing and

9THE IMPORTANCE OF HISTORY

replacement behaviors for unwanted responses.
The expansion of operant techniques to human
behavior began to occur with Skinner and his
student, Ogden R. Lindsley.

Building a Technology of Behavior Change

As the “father” of behaviorism, John B. Wat-
son was a pioneer in the development of psy-
chological science. He was also a frontrunner in
the evolution of behavior modification.

Starting Block

In one of the first significant applications of
learning theory to human behavior, Watson ex-
amined the conditioned emotional response of
infants. These observations led to an explana-
tion of how these fears were developed. One of
his most famous experiments was conducted
with a graduate student at Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity at the time, Rosalie Rayner (1898 –
1935). Their subject was known as “little Al-
bert” and is one that is familiar to most students
of introductory psychology. Albert was an 11-
month-old infant that had been raised in a hos-
pital environment. In order to examine the con-
ditioning of the fear response, Watson and
Rayner exposed him to a number of stimuli,
among them a white rat and a rabbit. As Albert
was playing with the white rat, a metal bar was
struck with a hammer producing a strong startle
response. The startle response had been ob-
served in previous interactions with the hammer
and the steel bar, but were now paired with the
white rat in the experiment (Watson & Rayner,
1920). The rat had not elicited any fear or startle
response prior to its being paired with the clang-
ing noise of the hammer on the bar. The rat now
elicited these fear responses. What they also
found was that Albert had startle responses in
the presence of other white furry objects such as
dogs, rabbits, fur coats, cotton, and wool. This
experiment had clearly shown that fear could be
learned. As many of these contributions to the
field of behaviorism were being made in the
United States, increasing strides were also being
made overseas.

The work of the O. Hobart Mowrer and Wil-
lie M. Mowrer were essential to the progress of
the behavioral model of therapy, yet they are
rarely given the attention that is afforded to
Thorndike, Skinner and other pioneers in be-

havioral methods and theory. The Mowrers
were some of the first researchers to apply
learning principles to significant clinical issues.
In their groundbreaking 1935 study, 30 children
who ranged in age from 3 to 13 years old and
who were suffering from enuresis received
treatment based on Pavlovian conditioning
(Mowrer & Mowrer, 1938). They constructed
an electronic pad that produced a loud sound
when it was exposed to fluids. The pad was a
cotton fabric that encased an electrical unit that
allowed the pad to produce a loud sound when
the child started to urinate. The loud noise, an
unconditioned stimulus (US), elicited a startle
reflex causing cessation of urination. By pairing
bladder distension with the US the child learned
to awaken when the bladder was distended but
before urination.

Operant Applications

O. R. Lindsley started a detailed research pro-
gram that was initially funded by the Office of
Naval Research to determine how applicable the
use of operant principles would be in chronically
hospitalized individuals with mental illness. The
bulk of the research was conducted at the Metro-
politan State Hospital in Waltham Massachusetts
(Lindsley, 1956). The operant behavior that was
examined was plunger or lever pulling that pro-
duced specific consequences based upon the
schedule of reinforcement that was in place for
that specific lever. Reinforcers such as candy and
cigarettes were used for the psychiatric patients
that were participants (Skinner, Solomon, & Lind-
sley, 1953). The results from this work demon-
strated that behavioral principles could be applied
to human organisms that had been deemed inca-
pable of learning (O’Donahue et al., 2001). When
the therapeutic applications based on learning the-
ory derived from research with infrahumans was
applied to humans, the doors to behavior therapy
were opened.

In an article often heralded as one of the first in
the literature of behavior analysis, Teodoro Ayllon
and Jack Michael (1959) documented the use of
nurse’s attention and its role in the maintenance of
some of the undesirable behavior noted on the
ward of a psychiatric hospital. The nurses were
also educated about the use of tangible items to
reinforce desirable behavior that they observed
during scheduled observation periods. A number
of behavioral challenges observed in the psychi-

10 GUERCIO

atric milieu were addressed successfully through
the use of operant procedures, thus demonstrating
the efficacy of the approach in a setting where
traditionally medically based approaches had been
used. Additional samples of some of the early
applications of operant conditioning involved the
reinstatement of verbal behavior in chronically
psychotic patients within a hospital setting. The
researchers used tangible reinforcers to gain com-
pliance to group attendance initially. This behav-
ior was then shaped to the point that the client was
attending groups and participating in them in or-
der to obtain tangible reinforcement. This finding
was replicated with another client described in that
same article. The use of operant reinforcement in
the form of chewing gum was used to shape his
verbal behavior to the point that he would request
the gum from the experimenter (Isaacs, Thomas,
& Goldiamond, 1960). A firm grasp of the learn-
ing foundations of behavior would lead to better
outcomes in the application of the science.

First Wave of Behavioral Applications

Human suffering has long been thought to be
due to internal forces be it demons or unconscious
wishes, instincts and drives. With the evolution of
modern medicine human behavior became in-
creasingly medicalized.

Medical Model and Psychoanalysis

The “disease model” looks for some underlying
cause of a behavioral malady. Given that the eti-
ology of mental suffering could not be readily
identified through simple observation, the causes
were assumed to be located within the individual
(Kraeplin, 1962). Biochemical causes along with a
series of assumptions that looked at mental dis-
ease as a physical lesion or a bodily disease that
was to be addressed as all other diseases were.
This type of an approach can lead to barriers to
treatment, not to mention “a vast literature of
iatrogenic irrelevancies.” (Ullman & Krassner,
1965). Physiology became the petri dish within
which the workings of behavior therapy were ex-
amined. Writers such as Thomas Szasz (1974)
who wrote about what he saw as “the myth of
mental illness” and Philip Pinel (1806) who wrote
the classic A Treatise on Insanity pointed out that
the insistence on physical lesions and bodily dis-
ease was errant for a number of reasons. Chief
among these was eloquently described by Pinel in
the following excerpt from his book:

The successful application of a moral regimen exclu-
sively gives great weight to the supposition that, in the
majority of instances, there is no organic lesion of the
brain or of the cranium. (p. 168)

Skinner had repeatedly stated that when we retreat
into the organism, we are obscuring or flat ignor-
ing some of the key variables upon which behav-
ior is related. By employing these constructs or
hypothetical entities, we remove our scrutiny from
where it should be, the actual behavior of the
person.

Previous conceptualizations of the therapeutic
treatment process was based upon subjectively
derived postulates that look at certain “neurosis”
or complexes that have a questionable origin. By
viewing maladaptive behavioral response from a
behavioral viewpoint and looking at the condition-
ing of these unwanted responses, a more scientific
basis from which to formulate a treatment ap-
proach was developed. The manner in which a
response was conditioned in either an operant or a
respondent manner contributed to how it should
be treated. Stimuli that had been paired with aver-
sive events took on aversive properties as Watson
and Rayner had demonstrated years earlier. Ex-
amining this learning history led to informed treat-
ment. The history of the problem held no in-
creased meaning or benefit for proponents of
behavior therapy.

Much of the work of the early psychoanalysts
was based upon building extensive histories from
their patients in order to make subjective formu-
lations as to the origins of their “neurosis.” The
field of behavior therapy was more interested in
looking at the current behavior as it was presented
and analyzing the learning conditions that contrib-
uted to it. The current behavior was a better indi-
cator of the maintaining variables that had to be
addressed. By objectively dealing with the behav-
ior itself, there was no need to formulate theories
about complex neurosis or other theoretical enti-
ties that got in the way of an accurate examination
of the contingencies that were in effect. As treat-
ment has progressed in the field of behavior ther-
apy new treatment approaches have been intro-
duced that have their basis in the behavioral
tradition.

Paradigm Shift

Whether it is biology, physics, or chemistry, the
development of a science has a clear line of pro-
gression. (Kuhn, 1963). In Kuhn’s formulation,

11THE IMPORTANCE OF HISTORY

the beginnings of theories that lay the groundwork
for what is to be a strong scientific program are
endorsed as a series of scientific “puzzles” that are
posed, debated, and ultimately solved by the pio-
neers of a given field of study. In the field of
behavior therapy, these pioneers went through
these same stages. Their attempts were to solve
the puzzles of human suffering and to do so using
the postulates of behaviorism and the principles of
behavior derived from learning theory and histo-
ries of reinforcement. If the current paradigms are
unable to solve the puzzles presented to it, there is
a need for a new paradigm. This was the case with
the emergence of behavioral approaches to ther-
apy in the middle and later 20th century. Behavior
therapy was able to present better solutions to the
problems that abnormal behavior presented (Kan-
fer & Philips, 1970).

The behavioral research program (behavior an-
alytic and learning-based (respondent condition-
ing) grew out of dissatisfaction with the ap-
proaches of the time. The focus on a science of
behavior was steeply based in learning theory,
with the significant influences of Skinner’s exper-
imental analysis of behavior. Joseph Wolpe’s re-
ciprocal inhibition for anxiety disorders was also a
major contributing research program in the evolu-
tion of the behavior therapies (O’Donahue et al.,
2001). This history does not revolve around a
single event, but rather a series of developments
and clinical innovations with evidence based of
outcomes. The common theme was the translation
of basic research findings, learning and condition-
ing, the science of behavior, and science of be-
havior and learning theory. A firm grasp of the
learning foundations of behavior could lead to
better outcomes in the application of the science.

Joseph Wolpe (1915–1997), a medical doctor
by training, came to be known as the father of
behavior therapy and a catalyst for the field of
behavior therapy. His work was done predomi-
nantly in Johannesburg, South Africa in the 1940s
and 1950s. He received his medical degree in the
late 1940s. Wolpe, strongly influenced by Pavlov,
impacted the work of Leo J. Reyna and Arnold A.
Lazarus, both of whom were significant leaders in
the first generation of behavior therapy. Wolpe
melded the theories of Pavlov and Hull (1943)
with the clinical work of Edmund Jacobson
(1938), the father of relaxation training, into what
he saw as a more functional evidence-based ther-
apy. Wolpe’s behavior therapy was a direct chal-
lenge to the ineffectiveness of psychoanalysis

(Poppen, 1995) and with it systematic desensiti-
zation.

Systematic desensitization, based on respon-
dent extinction, employs a gradual process of ex-
posure to enable a person to come into contact
with a feared stimulus that allows them to tolerate
more intense levels in the future. Wolpe focused
more on the conditioned stimulus (conditional
stimulus [CS]) than on the US, and from his view
it was the CS that distinguished neurotic from
nonneurotic fears (Poppen, 1995). Wolpe’s initial
research dealt with the development of experi-
mental neurosis in cats, done by the simultaneous
pairing of a shock delivered to the cat when it
approached food to eat (Wolpe, 1958). Some ob-
vious outcomes to these procedures were that the
cats avoided the cage in which they had received
the shocks. They would also refuse to eat when
forced into the cage in which the shocks had been
delivered. The cats were shocked in the cage
where the food was. When they were brought
from the living quarters to the experimental cham-
ber, conditioned emotional (fear) responses (CER)
occurred, along with attempts to avoid the cage.

Wolpe noticed that the severity of the CER that
the cats demonstrated was related to the similarity
of the experimental and natural contexts. The re-
lationship between the inhibition of eating and the
occurrence of CER might also indicate that in a
different situation, eating may inhibit fear. He
described the process between the two responses
as reciprocally inhibiting each other, or reciprocal
inhibition and invoked a physiological explana-
tion. In a systematic and deliberate process, he fed
animals in the presence of the cage where they had
experienced the aversive shock. He discovered
that the strength of the CER tended to dissipate as
the eating response had been established. Wolpe
(1958) described the process in the following
manner:

. . . in every instance feeding was made possible in the
presence of stimuli conditioned to anxiety responses
which, under other circumstances, inhibited feeding.
When stimuli to incompatible responses are present si-
multaneously, the occurrence of the response that is dom-
inant in the circumstances involves the reciprocal inhibi-
tion of the other. As the number of feedings increased, the
anxiety responses gradually became weaker, so that to
stimuli to which there was initially a response of the
anxiety pattern there was finally a feeding response with
inhibition of anxiety. (p. 67)

The translation of this process and its use with
humans was not far behind.

12 GUERCIO

Through the course of his work with anxiety,
Wolpe came across the writings of Edmund Ja-
cobson, a physiologist working at the University
of Chicago. Jacobson’s (1938) book, Progressive
Relaxation: A Physiological and Clinical Investi-
gation of Muscular States and Their Significance
in Psychological and Medical Practice, contained
specific methods for reducing muscle tension. Ja-
cobson asserted that the muscular tension ob-
served in some individuals with disabilities could
be addressed through the use of muscle relaxation
training. Moreover, he documented its efficacy in
phobic, general anxiety conditions, hypertension,
colitis, and a host of other disorders. As proposed
by Jacobson, relaxation training was so extensive
and could take up to 200 training sessions in order
to be proficient. Wolpe adapted the protocol so
that it could be done in only a few sessions. Wolpe
then employed relaxation as the inhibiting re-
sponse as had been observed with eating food in
his experiments with animals.

As a contemporary of Wolpe, Hans Eysenck’s
(1959) article, “Learning Theory and Behaviour

Therapy” sharply criticized psychoanalysis and
the disease model. The term behavior therapy also
appeared for the first time in the literature (Ey-
senck, 1959). He also delineated the differences
between Freudian psychotherapy and behavior
therapy, which are still relevant to contemporary
behavior science applications and other ap-
proaches to behavior change (see Table 1).

Eysenck strongly argued that the process of
behavior therapy be grounded in learning theory,
and further argued that all clinical psychologists
have formal education in learning and condition-
ing (Eysenck, 1960). The burgeoning literature on
the learning basis of behavior therapy at that time
that was based on the experimental analysis of
behavior using respondent conditioning prepara-
tions. For Eysenck, a scientific model based on
learning and conditioning was the heart of behav-
ior therapy. An evidence-based approach to the
treatment of human suffering meant a great deal.
The scientific foundation of a discipline should
have research proving its efficacy and the main-
tenance of its treatment outcomes. The finding

Table 1
A Comparison of the Approaches That Encompass a Psychotherapy-Based Approach to Therapy and the
Learning History Approach Inherent in Behavior Therapy

Freudian psychotherapy Behavior therapy

1. Theory is inconsistent. Not presented in postulate form. Consistent theory that allows its postulates to be tested.
2. Based on observations made without the proper

controls in place for experimentation.
Derived from numerous experimental studies designed to

test its basic theories and deductions.
3. Looks at symptoms as the manifestation of unconscious

causes (“complexes”).
Considers symptoms maladaptive conditioned responses.

4. Looks at symptoms as evidence of “repression.” Regards symptoms as the result of faulty learning.
5. Considers symptoms to be determined by defense

mechanisms.
Symptoms need to be examined individually according

to the persons learning history and accidental
environmental circumstances.

6. Treatments of neurotic disorders must be historically
based.

Treatments should be concerned with habits existing
presently, historical development is not considered
relevant.

7. Cures achieved through resolving underlying
unconscious dynamics, instead of treating the symptom
itself.

Cures achieved by treating the symptom itself and
extinguishing conditioned maladaptive responses and
establishing desirable conditioned alternative
responses.

8. Considers symptoms to be determined by defense
mechanisms.

Symptoms need to be examined individually according
to the persons learning history and accidental
environmental circumstances.

9. Interpretation of dreams seen as key elements in
therapy.

Interpretation in this area is irrelevant and subjective.

10. Treatment of symptoms leads to the emergence of new
symptoms (symptom substitution).

The treatment of symptoms is an integral part of therapy
and leads to permanent recovery as long as autonomic
as well as skeletal conditioned responses are
extinguished.

11. Cures of neurotic disorders require a “transference
relation” in order to be successful.

Personal relations are not necessary for cures, though
they do have utility in certain circumstances.

13THE IMPORTANCE OF HISTORY

that unwanted behavior was conditioned (learned)
through contact with environmental events was a
major contributing factor to the development of
behavior therapy (Eysenck, 1959).

Summary and Conclusions

This article is meant to serve as a guide for
training students and those new to the field of
behavior analysis regarding the importance of the
history of the field. As the science and application
of behavior analysis continues to develop, it is
vitally important that training programs for behav-
ior analysis increase the imperative that we pro-
mulgate the scientific roots of our field. This is in
contrast to the current practice of preparing large
groups of students for clinical practice to the ex-
clusion of training in the scientific and applied
work that was critical in the maturation of behav-
ior analysis. The first generation of behavior ther-
apy focused on symptom/behavior reduction, with
change in cognition being an indirect effect. Inter-
vention was externally managed. Early ABA in-
terventions, a part of the broader first wave um-
brella, also followed the same model with few
exceptions. The advent of the first wave of behav-
ior therapy was followed by a second wave that
focused primarily on covert events and has been
dubbed the “cognitive revolution” (Greenwood,
1999). The strength and success of behavior anal-
ysis has been due to its reliance on the science of
behavior and the efficacy of the interventions that
are derived from such a science. Market driven
approaches can lead to the production of ill
equipped scientists and self-limiting outcomes. By
placing greater emphasis on the scientific under-
pinnings of the field we may be able to stem this
tide.

The practice-science divide, described so thor-
oughly by Critchfield (2011), underscores the im-
portance of looking at the history of a given field
in order to gain a better understanding of the
progression of that field. He also underscores the
importance of a dedication to the scientific under-
pinnings of a discipline in order to ensure its
intellectual survival. His analysis points to the
increases in issues around credentialing, employ-
ment opportunities, and systems of compensation
that are competing with the scientific training of
future behavior analysts. One of the most impor-
tant questions that he poses is, “Are guild issues
incompatible with science?” They do not always
need to be, but they can dominate a field if they

are allowed to so. We should celebrate the com-
mon conceptual framework and encourage “the
foundation of intellectual discussions that stimu-
late innovation in both science and practice”
(Critchfield, 2011, p. 305). Scientific advances in
the field of behavior analysis, beyond ASD and
developmental disabilities, are what we should be
striving for. The first step is to increase education
and training in the philosophy and science of
behavior. The second article in this series will pick
up with the advent of the second wave of behavior
therapy.

References

Ayllon, T., & Michael, J. (1959). The psychiatric
nurse as a behavioral engineer. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2, 323–334.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1959.2-323

Biglan, A. (2015). The nurture effect. Oakland, CA:
New Harbinger.

Coleman, S. R. (1988, May, 28). What does the
history of psychology have on sale today? Paper
presented at the 14th Annual Convention of the
Association for Behavior Analysis, Philadelphia,
PA.

Critchfield, T. S. (2011). Interesting times: Practice,
science, and professional associations in behavior
analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 34, 297–310.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03392259

Dixon, M. R., Reed, D. D., Smith, T., Belisle, J., &
Jackson, R. E. (2015). Research rankings of be-
havior analytic graduate training programs. Behav-
ior Analysis in Practice, 8, 7–15. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s40617-015-0057-0

Eysenck, H. J. (1959). Learning theory and behaviour
therapy. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 105,
61–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjp.105.438.61

Eysenck, H. J. (1960). Behavior therapy and the
neurosis; readings in modern methods of treatment
of mental disorders derived from learning theory.
New York, NY: Pergamon Press.

Greenwood, J. D. (1999). Understanding the “cogni-
tive revolution” in psychology. Journal of the His-
tory of the Behavioral Sciences, 35, 1–22. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6696(199924)35:
1�1::AID-JHBS1�3.0.CO;2-4

Guercio, J. M., & Murray, W. J. (2014). Licensure
for behavior analysts: The path to responsible and
cooperative action. Behavioral Interventions, 29,
225–240.

Hackenberg, T. D. (1995). Jacques Loeb, B. F. Skin-
ner, and the legacy of prediction and control. The
Behavior Analyst, 18, 225–236. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/BF03392710

Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G.
(1999). Acceptance and commitment therapy: An

14 GUERCIO

http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1959.2-323

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03392259

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40617-015-0057-0

http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjp.105.438.61

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/%28SICI%291520-6696%28199924%2935:1%3C1::AID-JHBS1%3E3.0.CO;2-4

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03392710

experiential approach to behavior change. New
York, NY: Guilford Press.

Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior: An intro-
duction to behavior therapy. New York, NY:
Appleton Century.

Isaacs, W., Thomas, J., & Goldiamond, I. (1960).
Application of operant conditioning to reinstate
verbal behavior in psychotics. The Journal of
Speech and Hearing Disorders, 25, 8 –12. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1044/jshd.2501.08

Jacobson, E. (1938). Progressive relaxation: A phys-
iological and clinical investigation of muscular
states and their significance in psychological and
medical practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chi-
cago Press.

Jones, M. C. (1924). A laboratory study of fear: The
case of Peter. The Pedagogical Seminary and
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 31, 308 –315.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08856559.1924.9944851

Kanfer, F. H., & Philips, J. S. (1970). Learning
foundations of behavior therapy. New York, NY:
Wiley and Sons.

Kazdin, A. E. (1978). History of behavior modifica-
tion: Experimental foundations of contemporary
research. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

Kraeplin, E. (1962). One hundred years of psychiatry
(W. Baskin, Trans.). New York, NY: Citadel.

Kuhn, T. (1963). The structure of scientific revolu-
tions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Lindsley, O. R. (1956). Operant conditioning meth-
ods applied to research in chronic schizophrenia.
Psychiatric Research Reports, 5, 118 –139.

Mach, E. (1960). The science of mechanics (3rd ed.).
T. J. McCormack (Trans.). LaSalle, IL: Open
Court. (Original work published 1883)

Marr, M. J. (1985). ‘Tis the gift to be simple: A
retrospective appreciation of Mach’s the science of
mechanics. Journal of the Experimental Analysis
of Behavior, 44, 129 –138. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1901/jeab.1985.44-129

Mowrer, O. H., & Mowrer, W. M. (1938). Enuresis:
A method for its study and treatment. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 8, 436 – 459. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1938.tb06395.x

O’Donahue, W. T., Henderson, D. A., Hayes, S. C.,
Fisher, J. E., & Hayes, L. J. (Eds.). (2001). A
history of the behavioral therapies: Founder’s per-
sonal histories. Reno, NV: Context Press.

Pavlov, I. P. (1906). The scientific investigation of
the psychical faculties or processes in the higher
animals. Science, 24, 613– 619. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1126/science.24.620.613

Pavlov, I. P. (1932). The reply of a physiologist to
psychologists. Psychological Review, 39, 91–127.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0069929

Pinel, P. (1806). A treatise on insanity. London,
England: W. Todd. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
10550-000

Poppen, R. (1995). Joseph Wolpe. London, England:
SAGE.

Sechenov, I. M. (1965). Reflexes of the brain: An
attempt to establish the physiological basis of psy-
chological processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An
experimental analysis. Cambridge, MA: B. F.
Skinner Foundation.

Skinner, B. F. (1954). Science and human behavior.
London, England: Collier Macmillan Publishers.

Skinner, B. F. (1979). The shaping of a behaviorist.
New York, NY: Knopf.

Skinner, B. F. (1987). Upon further reflection. Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice -Hall.

Skinner, B. F., Solomon, H. C., & Lindsley, O. R.
(1953, November 30). Studies in behavior therapy.
Status report. Waltham, MA: Metropolitan State
Hospital.

Szasz, T. S. (1974). The myth of mental illness:
Foundations of a theory of personal conduct. New
York, NY: Harper & Row. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1016/B978-0-08-017738-0.50007-7

Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence: Exper-
imental studies. New York, NY: Macmillan. http://
dx.doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.55072

Ullman, L. P., & Krassner, L. (1965). Case studies in
behavior modification. New York, NY: Holt, Rine-
hart & Winston.

Watson, J. B. (1924). Behaviorism. Chicago, IL: The
People’s Institute.

Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned
emotional reaction. Journal of Experimental Psy-
chology, 3, 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h006
9608

Wolpe, J. (1958). Psychotherapy by reciprocal inhi-
bition. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Received November 30, 2015
Revision received January 3, 2018

Accepted January 4, 2018 �

15THE IMPORTANCE OF HISTORY

http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/jshd.2501.08

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08856559.1924.9944851

http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1985.44-129

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1938.tb06395.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.24.620.613

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0069929

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10550-000

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-017738-0.50007-7

http://dx.doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.55072

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0069608

The Importance of a Deeper Knowledge of the History and Theoretical Foundations of Behavior Anal …

Importance of the History of Behavior Analysis
Benefit to the Discipline of Behavior Analysis
Relation Between the History and Philosophy of the Science of Behavior
Conceptual and Philosophical Underpinnings
Psychology as a Behaviorist Views It
Natural Science Influences
The Russians
Biology and Mechanics
Early Experimental Demonstrations
Trial-and-Error Learning
Emergence of Operant Conditioning
Building a Technology of Behavior Change
Starting Block
Operant Applications
First Wave of Behavioral Applications
Medical Model and Psychoanalysis
Paradigm Shift
Summary and Conclusions
References

The Importance of a Deeper Knowledge of the History and
Theoretical Foundations of Behaviorism and Behavior Therapy:

Part 2—1960 –1985

John M. Guercio
Benchmark Human Services, St. Louis, Missouri

The present article will detail the evolution of behaviorism and behavior therapy as it
progressed from first-generation behavior therapy applications such as those espoused
by Pavlov, Watson, and Skinner through the second generation of behavior therapies.
The article is the second of a 3-part article detailing the first through the third
generations of behavior therapy within the field of behaviorism. The present article
primarily addresses the transition from the first generation of behavior therapy through
the paradigm shift to second-generation approaches. The second generation of behavior
therapies involved the incorporation of cognitive behavior therapy and the rise of the
so called “cognitive revolution.” The importance of grasping the paradigm shift
involved in these different generations of the field will assist students and scholars alike
in viewing the shaping of the basic scientific tenets of behaviorism. The value is also
seen when entertaining the newer ideas that were introduced to the field that brought the
science of behaviorism to a wider audience while simultaneously advancing its scope.
The rise of the second generation of behavior therapy introduced the concept of
mediational variables to the field. The incorporation of a more mediational approach to
behavioral processes replaced the earlier views of the environments’ influences on
behavioral repertoires. Some of the biggest outgrowths of the second generation
of behavioral therapies will be detailed and examined.

Keywords: cognitive behavior therapy, generations of behavior therapy, behaviorism,
waves of behavior therapy, training programs in applied behavior analysis

The initial article in this series of three arti-
cles outlined the need for the study of the his-
tory of the science of behavior. This need was
highlighted in the context of the ever-expanding
number of practitioners that enter the field of
applied behavior analysis (ABA) on a yearly
basis. The case was made that the proliferation
of ABA practitioners in the field should not
result in a narrow view of the science of behav-
iorism (Guercio & Murray, 2014). The history
of the discipline is very rich and one that merits

considerable study and reflections on how we
are developing better behavioral scientists and
practitioners. The initial article in the series
examined the first generation or “fathers” of the
field such as B. F Skinner, John Watson, and
Ivan Pavlov (Guercio, 2018). These intellectual
giants paved the way for a series of transforma-
tions in the field that led to the reconceptualiza-
tion of behavior– environment interactions and
the etiology of specific behavior as well as
patterns of behavior. The second generation of
behavior therapy involved the incorporation of
cognitive behavior therapy and the rise of the
so-called “cognitive revolution.”

Inherent in this revolution was a distancing
from the laboratory that Pavlov and Skinner
used to derive the early precepts of the field.
The transition was being made to a more appli-
cation-based clinical therapy where stimulus–
response psychology and Skinner’s operant

This article was published Online First April 9, 2020.
John M. Guercio, Benchmark Human Services, St. Louis,

Missouri.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-

dressed to John M. Guercio, 1215 Fern Ridge Parkway
#204, St. Louis, MO 63141. E-mail: johnmguercio@gmail
.com

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t

is
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
P

sy
ch

ol
og

ic
al

A
ss

oc
ia

ti
on

or
on

e
of

it
s

al
li

ed
pu

bl
is

he
rs

.
T

hi
s

ar
ti

cl
e

is
in

te
nd

ed
so

le
ly

fo
r

th
e

pe
rs

on
al

us
e

of
th

e
in

di
vi

du
al

us
er

an
d

is
no

t
to

be
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
br

oa
dl

Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice
© 2020 American Psychological Association 2020, Vol. 20, No. 3,

174

–195
ISSN: 2372-9414 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bar0000178

174

mailto:johnmguercio@gmail.com

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bar0000178

methodology were slowly being replaced by the
formulations of behavior that included interven-
ing variables (Hayes, 2004). The time period
covered in this article will commence during the
decades of the 1950s and 1960s with the even-
tual publication of the Journal of Applied Be-
havior Analysis. The opposing points of view
espoused by adherents of the “cognitive revo-
lution” that followed and the behavioral rebut-
tals to this framework comprise a great deal of
the history of behaviorism and behavior ther-
apy.

The models that comprised the second gen-
eration of behavior therapy provided for the
interpretation of more complex behavioral
events by breaking them down into simpler
components. Skinnerian models of behavior
during the first generation of behavior therapy
minimized the role of emotional states as pri-
mary targets of intervention (Kanfer & Phillips,
1970). The discovery of the basic principles of
behavior and the subsequent science of behav-
iorism led to practical applications of these prin-
ciples.

The notion of behaviorism being rooted in
the learning history of the individual was crucial
to the behavioral account. The utility of the
behavioral approach was evident in a number of
demonstrative and impressive demonstrations
of the behavioral treatment of common psycho-
logical problems. The work of John Watson, a
crucial pioneer in first-generation conceptual-
izations, was instrumental in demonstrating ex-
perimentally induced fear under laboratory con-
ditions. Watson’s description of the case of a
young child of 11 months named Albert dem-
onstrated that a fear response could be produced
in the laboratory (Watson & Rayner, 1920). The
elaboration upon these findings and the subse-
quent attempts to successfully treat Albert’s
learned fear were forfeited when he was re-
moved from the hospital that he was in when the
fear was conditioned. A number of early clini-
cians that worked within the Watsonian frame-
work can be labeled as behavior therapists.

The list of individuals based in the Watsonian
tradition covers such luminaries as Mary Cover
Jones and Edwin R. Guthrie (Krasner, 1998;
Morris, Altus, & Smith, 2013). Cover Jones was
a classmate and friend of Rosalie Raynor at
Vasser where they met. Raynor went on to work
at Johns Hopkins, where she served as John
Watson’s assistant. Cover Jones worked under

the tutelage of Watson for her doctoral disser-
tation. Being interested in early childhood edu-
cation, the thrust of her behavioral research was
done in the area of fear reactions with children.
Additional work that was deeply rooted in the
origins of first-generation foundations was
based heavily on stimulus behavior relation-
ships.

Edwin R, Guthrie held views that were the
closest to Watson’s. He posited that behavioral
responses that occurred in certain situations
would be more likely to be repeated in the same
circumstances in the future. He stated that the
molar aspects of stimulus response pairings
should be the focus of study independent of the
presence of reinforcement or punishment for the
responses that occurred. The minute muscular
responses that occurred in certain situations
were part of a larger behavioral act that became
conditioned as a whole during identified situa-
tions. Behavioral movements produced propri-
oceptive stimuli that served as conditioned
stimuli for future responses. The pairing of the
stimuli with the responses were all that was
needed in his formulations of behavior (Kazdin,
1978). Guthrie’s primary contention was that
psychologists should get down to a factual basis
with respect to their subject matter. This factual
basis should start with descriptions of stimuli
and behavioral events that were acceptable to all
observing such an event (Guthrie, 1946). The
second generation of behavior therapy sought to
incorporate more “mediational” accounts as op-
posed to the stimulus response behaviorism es-
poused by Watson’s first-generation accounts.

In order to better examine the assumptions
and philosophical underpinnings of first- and
second-generation behavior therapy formula-
tions of behavior, it is necessary to segment the
development of the field into “generations” or
paradigm shifts within the field (Brown, Gaudi-
ano, & Miller, 2011). Prior to the development
of the second generation of behavior therapy,
attempts were made to disseminate the behav-
ioral approach to a larger audience.

The process of dissemination of behaviorism
involved introducing the simplicity of a behav-
ioral analysis to the complexities of the prob-
lems commonly observed in the field of psy-
chology in general. One of the biggest
environments where behaviorism made a big
impact was working with some of the issues
seen in schools or other environments where

175IMPORTANCE OF HISTORY: PART 2

similar problems in learning were present. Sid-
ney Bijou was a pioneer in the applications of
behavioral principles with children.

Sidney Bijou moved to the University of
Washington in 1948 and proceeded to have a
significant impact on the use of behavior anal-
ysis with children. He discovered that the use of
intermittent schedules of reinforcement were
more resistant to extinction than continuous re-
inforcement was, as had been discovered in the
basic literature (Bijou, 1957). During the 1950s
and 1960s, Bijou recruited new faculty mem-
bers for his Institute of Child Development in
Seattle. Included in this recruitment effort were
two young promising behavioral psychologists
named Montrose Wolf and Donald Baer. In
addition to Wolf and Baer, a bevy of talented
graduate students worked at the Institute includ-
ing Ivar Lovaas, Todd Risley, and James Sher-
man to name but a few. In a special case of
irony, Bijou supervised the PhD dissertation of
Kenneth Spence’s daughter Shirley Ann Spence
Pumroy. The special intellectual environment
that Bijou had set up in Seattle produced re-
search that would solidify the contributions of
behaviorism. During his graduate training, Bi-
jou became convinced that an objective science
of psychology would eventually have to ac-
count for events that occurred between the per-
ception of the stimulus and the response output
that resulted. He stated at that time that research
should be focused on hypothesis testing that
helped to reveal some of the properties of these
intervening variables and their relationships
with response outputs (Bijou, 2001). In the
midst of these practical applications of behav-
ioral technology, the move to a mediational
model of behavior was starting to become evi-
dent.

Precursors to the Second Generation:
Keller and Schoenfeld’s Principles

of Psychology

One of B. F. Skinner’s closest contempo-
raries was Fred S. Keller. The two met at Har-
vard and had very similar scientific and research
interests. Skinner served as an advisor and close
friend of his throughout their careers. Keller and
Skinner made several excursions together
throughout the Boston area while they were
both at Harvard, many times biking to Walden
Pond, which would serve as the model for Skin-

ner’s utopian novel Walden II (Keller, 2009).
As Keller went on to teach at Columbia Uni-
versity after his graduate school years, he met
Nat Schoenfeld (Keller, 2009).

The professional relationship that Keller and
Schoenfeld cultivated in their time at Columbia
produced a great deal of scholarship. The two
collaborated on a number of projects and ulti-
mately developed a series of lectures. In their
efforts to produce material for the newly ap-
proved Psychology 1 and Psychology 2 course
sequences at Columbia, Keller and Schoenfeld
(1950) collaborated on a text that was to be used
for the course. In 1947 as Skinner was hosting
what would become the first conference on the
experimental analysis of behavior, the pair
would work diligently on what would become
the classic text on behaviorism to that time, The
Principles of Psychology. The conference that
Skinner hosted involved around 20 participants
from either Columbia or Indiana, where Skinner
was employed at the time (Dinsmoor, 1989).

Those that attended the conference described
the attendees as an eclectic group with a strong
focus on scientific rigor. The philosophical bent
of the attendees was more toward Skinnerian
views as opposed to Hull or Kantor’s at the time
(Dinsmoor, 1987). Skinner was by far the most
active presenter, but Ralph Hefferline, Bill Es-
tes, Keller, and others were present as well and
presented their current research to the group.
Basic behavioral principles themselves were the
focus. As the history of behaviorism and behav-
ior therapy was presented to a wider audience,
applications of these principles were brought
into more focus. This conference was the pre-
cursor to such organizations as the Society for
the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, Divi-
sion 25 of the American Psychological Associ-
ation, and the Association for Behavior Analy-
sis. Some of the presentations by Keller were
later detailed in The Principles of Psychology.

Keller wrote in his autobiography that he and
Schoenfeld divided up the material for the book
according to separate chapters and that Schoe-
nfeld did much more of the writing by compar-
ison when the text was completed (Keller,
2009). Their intention was to produce an intro-
ductory text to the field of psychology, while at
the same time orienting students and other read-
ers of the text to the scientific underpinnings of
the behavioral viewpoint. The text proceeded
from relatively simple psychological tenets that

176 GUERCIO

served as the foundations upon which the later
chapters of the book were to build upon to more
complex human behavior that could easily be
explained via the behavioral model. The text
served to introduce many interested readers
over the years to the field of behaviorism and
the role that the environment played in the be-
havior of all organisms.

The pioneering undergraduate text was offi-
cially published in 1950. Murray Sidman was
a student of both authors and stated in his
book that they did what had never been done
before with the publication of this book. The
systematic approach with which the text ap-
proached the subject matter of psychology
allowed the student to learn the new language
of behaviorism and to apply it consistently in
the field of psychology (Sidman, 1995). Each
chapter covered material that represented sub-
fields of psychology at the time. The progres-
sion of the material from simple to complex
makes the contents easy to assimilate. The
goal of the authors was to show how complex
behaviors may be explained in terms of a
simple behavioral methodology. One of the
most relevant statements made in Keller and
Schoenfeld (1950) was that good data stand
on their own merits, regardless of theory. Such
a focus on the objective interpretation of data
helps to make decisions as opposed to theory
guiding interpretations regarding the observed
behavior and its etiology. The common founda-
tional aspect that all behavior was traced back to
environmental determinants was one that was
new to many students of psychology. The sec-
tion of the text on discrimination and general-
ization led to Sidman’s groundbreaking work
on equivalence class formulation (Sidman,
1995). Sidman underscored the importance of
this book with respect to the introduction of
behaviorally based accounts of behavior.

Sidman urges us to not lose sight of the intent
of the text, which was to be a novel introduction
to psychology. Many students in the field of
psychology are ill prepared for the organism–
environment etiology of behavior that was to be
represented in their book. The lawfulness of
behavior as it was presented was a new formu-
lation of human nature.

The field of psychology had initially refused
to accept this new conceptualization of behav-
ior. These contingencies should be taken into
account if behavior is to be understood and

significant changes are to be made to the de-
structive practices that plague our society. Skin-
ner and his contemporaries started to expound
upon this contingency analysis of overt events
to incorporate private events into a scientific
analysis. These new findings in the field were
advancing scientific inquiry beyond the isolated
study of observable behavior to events that took
place covertly and set the stage for what has
been termed mediational explanations of behav-
ioral responses. Skinner’s work sought to iden-
tify areas that veered away from an experimen-
tal analysis of behavior.

The Evolution of Complex Learning
Processes and Mediational Accounts Within
the First Generation of Behavior Therapy

Behaviorism experienced stratification in the
field between behaviorists and neobehaviorists.
With this stratification came the questions of the
etiology of behavior, discriminations between
stimuli, and the process of response generaliza-
tion, to name but a few. One of the variants of
behaviorism that arose in the field was neobe-
haviorism. The most notable neobehaviorists
were Guthrie, Hull, Spence and Tolman. A
foundational tenet of neobehaviorism was a fo-
cus on animal learning processes and the data
that were collected in classical, instrumental,
and discrimination learning experiments (Segal
& Lachman, 1972). Neobehaviorism can be de-
fined as those models where meta theoretical
explanatory systems based largely upon hypo-
thetico-deductive postulates were used to ex-
plain the etiology of behavior (Suppes, 1975).
Many of these postulates involved theoretical
terms that were believed to be intervening vari-
ables between the stimulus and response that
was observed. Although a belief that learning
processes were central to a scientific analysis of
behavior, these beliefs were diametrically op-
posed to Skinner’s system. Early neobehavior-
ists such as Clark Hull started to fashion math-
ematical theories based upon generalization
gradients and the manner in which the environ-
ment impacts behavior. Hull described these
relations between stimuli and responses in a
very methodical fashion referring to the gradi-
ents of stimuli that were based upon a contin-
uum of the properties of the stimuli that were
consistently presented to an organism’s senso-
rium over the course of repeated reinforcements

177IMPORTANCE OF HISTORY: PART 2

(Hull, 1950). Theoretical physiological mech-
anisms were hypothesized for the learning
processes that he described. Most of Hull’s
seminal work was performed at Yale. The
philosophical premise of neobehaviorism was
to shift to theoretical approaches that em-
ployed learning processes in their explana-
tions of behavior as opposed to strictly stimu-
lus–response relationships. Hullian models
looked at the process of learning from a dif-
ferent perspective than espoused by Watson
or other first-generation behaviorists. Theo-
rists such as Edward Tolman focused primar-
ily on cognitive schemas to explain the etiol-
ogy of behavior. Tolman’s brand of
behaviorism was dubbed purposive behavior-
ism (Staddon, 2001). Both Tolman and Hull
sought to uncover certain mechanisms that
were at the foundation of behavior as opposed
to strictly examining the environmental influ-
ences of behavior (Staddon, 2001). The focus
here was on basic behavioral processes as
opposed to the application of these processes.
The primary thrust of Tolman’s work was to
attempt to demonstrate that simple S–R con-
ceptualizations of behavior were inadequate
(Tolman, 1948).

Tolman underscored the spatial recognition
skills of the rats that traversed his mazes (Tol-
man, 1938). He had hoped that more formal
theories of these spatial skills would develop,
but this never came to pass. Neither the simplis-
tic quantitative propositions of Hull or Tol-
man’s pursuit of metaphorical constructs led to
a comprehensive grasp of the behavioral mech-
anisms that they both sought to identify (Stad-
don, 2001; Tolman, 1938). The manner in
which Watson, and later Skinner, approached
these issues was quite different. They pursued
prediction and control of behavior through the
interaction of observable behavior and the en-
vironment, unaided by theory. Watson’s re-
search program was essentially atheoretical,
while Skinner provided what he viewed as an
alternative to theory comprised of Baconian fact
finding and pragmatic epistemology (Staddon,
2001).

Some of the most significant contributors to
the behavioral tradition veered away from a
strictly Watsonian-based behaviorism. Skin-
ner’s operant approach girded in the environ-
mental determinants of behavior shifted to a
focus on mediational accounts and mathemati-

cal models of behavior by the neobehaviorists.
Kenneth Spence (1907–1967) asserted that a
theory of behavior must be expressed mathe-
matically. Spence relied heavily on trial and
error based explanations where discriminations
are made that help facilitate learning (Spence,
1936). Both Spence and Hull employed much
more than the basic behavior environment in-
teractions as espoused in the first generation.
Spence’s theories were an attempt to move be-
yond constructs such as insight being proposed
as key catalysts for learning and more toward a
mathematical account of response probability.

Spence and Hull saw matters in a similar
vein. They were both committed objectivists
subscribing to the Watsonian definition of
methodological behaviorism. Their primary
point of departure was developed out of an
interest in addressing the perceived inadequa-
cies and limitations of learning theory (Kendler,
1967). The concept of response strength was an
idea that fascinated both he and Hull and led to
a variety of theoretical formulations designed to
define “motivation” as it related to response
strength. Such viewpoints were consistent with
neobehaviorism and served as foundational te-
nets of the neobehaviorist viewpoint at the time
that was more theoretical in nature (Staddon,
2001). Some of the points of departure from
traditional first-generation formulations came in
the analysis of complex learning that was as-
serted to be inadequately addressed by first-
generation explanations. Spence looked at the
influence of human cognition and drive factors
and how they could be conceptualized and ap-
plied to human and animal behavior alike (Ken-
dler, 1967). Hull was also interested in what he
called habits. He described habits as invisible
conditions of the nervous system whereby the
habit mediated action of the organism (Hull,
1952). Spence was also noted to have referred
to habits as being part of a response model. This
reference to invisible conditions was a departure
from the purely stimulus response relations de-
scribed by Watson and earlier behaviorists.
There are also a number of similarities in Hull’s
approach with Watson and Skinner’s formula-
tions of behavior. Hull insisted on a consistent
and rigorous objectivism. He pointed out the
drawbacks of the reification of a behavioral
function, or giving the function of a behavior a
name and acting as though the name itself ex-
plains the behavior.

178 GUERCIO

The Flight From the Laboratory

Skinner bemoaned the tendency of psychol-
ogists to stray away from the experimental anal-
ysis of behavior and the pursuit of construct-
based diagnosis and treatment (Skinner, 1961).
He asserted that they should be required to
become familiarized with the apparatus and pro-
cedures of the laboratory setting as opposed to
their strict training in statistics in graduate
school. He saw such academic training as a
diversion from the observable behavior that
should have been included in their training. The
use of mentalistic constructs per se and mental
surrogates were taking the place of a true sci-
ence of behavior. They should be given the
occasion to behave as scientists rather than what
he called the robots described by scientific
methodologies. He postulated that these were
required in order to restore experimental psy-
chology’s vigor. Skinner desperately desired
that the young psychologists of his day would
see the importance of their contributions
through their advancing the understanding that
human behavior could lead to cultural changes
as well as changes in individual behavior. These
changes, he argued, would eventually impact
the anxieties and challenges of mankind. All of
this could be obtained through a laboratory-
based approach to human behavior.

His pleas to rely on an experimental analysis
rested on the belief that behavior could be pre-
dicted and controlled. His frustration was with
the move that psychology was making to the
study of the inner man. The study of media-
tional constructs eventually led to the second
generation of behavior therapy, which involved
what he called the flight from the laboratory.
This flight involved the focus of inquiry chang-
ing from scientific examinations to the mathe-
matical models of statistics, the study of “inner”
causes of behavior (Skinner, 1961, p. 370). His
plea was that one could identify directly manip-
ulable variables as opposed to verbal explana-
tions of behavior. Skinner eloquently outlines
how the casual use of layman’s terms in the
flight into laymanship and the use of personality
theories in the flight to the inner man can lead
one astray of identifying manipulable variables
of behavior. The same was true in how people
would retreat to mathematical models of behav-
ior as opposed to studying specific observable
environment/behavior interactions of behavior

change. The use of terms such as empathy and
intuition cannot replace a scientific analysis of
behavior. These references to unobservable
phenomena are said by some to take inquiry off
of the path to truth and down the rabbit holes of
speculation and conjecture from Skinner’s per-
spective.

Skinner did not eschew theory entirely. His
aim was to sharpen the focus on the important
variables responsible for a better understanding
of the environmental etiology of behavior. His
formulations were based upon the ability to
predict and control responses based upon an
operant analysis. His analysis was extended to
human behavior as he expounded upon the
foundations of his operant analysis. He ex-
plained many common terms such as anger and
other emotions in terms of conditioning. The
effects of positive reinforcement and punish-
ment were used to point out the conditions
under which emotional terms such as frustration
and embarrassment are said to arise in his anal-
ysis (Skinner, 1953). Skinner expounded upon
his applications of an operant analysis to human
affairs as he pointed out that concepts such as
the mind and the manner in which we acquire
new information are a byproduct of contingen-
cies of reinforcement as opposed to a mental
entity (Skinner, 1977). The changes in the field
of behaviorism based on Skinner’s observations
of the flight from the laboratory led to many
different conceptualizations of human behavior
and experimental analysis, including an analysis
of private events.

Extrapolations to Human Populations

As new formulations were being sought for
stimulus response relationships by the neobe-
haviorists, a number of the early pioneers con-
tinued to work within first-generation traditions.
Much of the work that occurred in the 60s and
70s would go on to further the field in ways that
second-generation mediational accounts could
not. The postulates of observable and measur-
able behavioral goals continued to be the bed-
rock for behavioral interventions in a number of
different populations. One of the primary pop-
ulations targeted was children.

Sidney Bijou worked under the tutelage of
Kenneth Spence at the University of Iowa. He
was exposed to many of the writings of Clark
Hull via weekly meetings called the Monday

179IMPORTANCE OF HISTORY: PART 2

Night Group (Bruce, 1998). These Monday
Night Group meetings were devoted exclu-
sively to a chapter-by-chapter review of Hull’s
article that later became published as Principles
of Behavior (Bijou, 2001). Bijou later con-
ducted studies at the University of Washington
examining the role of extinction on the emo-
tional behavior of children, the laboratory con-
trol of thumb sucking by withdrawal and repre-
sentation of reinforcement, and reinforcing
imitative repertoires (Baer, 1962; Bijou & Or-
lando, 1961). It is beyond the scope of this
paper to document all of the incredible work
done during this fertile period, but it set the
stage for one of the most influential training
programs in behaviorism up to that time.

In the early 1960s, the University of Kansas
found itself with a number of child care facili-
ties that were surplus from the second world
war, and a substantial budget line item for child
research. Out of these facts and many other
circumstances, the Department of Human De-
velopment and Family Life was born. Francis
Horowitz moved with her husband to the Uni-
versity of Kansa in 1961 as the result of her
husband’s taking a position in the English de-
partment there. Horowitz then starting working
with the Department of Child Research at the
university. She was instrumental in evolving
what was the Department of Home Economics
into the Department of Human Development
and Family Life, where the behavioral program
was to be housed. She had met Don Baer in
1960 while she was at Southern Oregon College
and Baer was at the University of Washington.
At this time, Baer was unhappy because of the
lack of tolerance of Skinnerian perspectives and
a disdain for single subject research at the Psy-
chology Department there (Horowitz, 2002).
She was eventually able to get him to come to
Lawrence for a visit to the university. The ex-
isting chair prior to his arrival was approaching
retirement and had been in conversation with
Don Baer and asked him if he would be “inter-
ested in a challenge.” (Baer, 1993). Baer moved
to Kansas and was able to shape the department
there and create undergraduate and doctoral
programs that were steeped in the behavioral
tradition. Thus started the illustrious behavior-
ally oriented research and applied history of the
University of Kansas. Given that a momentous
psychology civil war had broken out at the
University of Washington, a number of its most

talented behavioral researchers and clinicians
were left looking for other appointments. Baer
wanted to retain the experimental vigor that was
emblematic of Sidney Bijou’s Developmental
Psychology laboratory at the University of
Washington. Feeling up to the challenge, Baer
arrived at the University of Kansas in the sum-
mer of 1965. Montrose Wolf and Todd Risley
were among the first hires in the fledgling pro-
gram. Wolf and Risley immediately began proj-
ects in urban ghetto areas in Kansas City. The
foundations of the programs were not so much
based on the debates of the day such as operant
versus Hullian principles, as they were in ex-
perimentally driven projects. The success that
followed is obvious with a scan of the literature
during that time period.

There were also other behavioral theorists
who worked diligently during the period to in-
clude private events in their analysis, as Skinner
had done. Israel Goldiamond sought to provide
a comprehensive behavior analysis that would
encompass public and private events alike.
Goldiamond pursued an analysis of moral be-
havior as well as looking at a functional analysis
of the content of verbal behavior in therapeutic
sessions (Goldiamond, 1968; Goldiamond &
Dyrud, 1968; Layng, 2009). Goldiamond refer-
enced research on pigeon behavior as demon-
strating that the pain associated with different
contexts may not be maladaptive, but rather an
appropriate response depending upon the con-
text of the behavior. Goldiamond’s research in
this area was fueled by the findings of other
first-generation researchers (Holz & Azrin,
1961). This was a bit of foreshadowing to some
of the conceptualizations brought forth in the
“third wave” of behavior therapy that Hayes
was to champion several decades later (Hayes,
2004).

Another theorist steeped in the early days of
the behavioral movement was Arthur Staats.
Staats was an early psychology faculty member
at Arizona State University. He focused his
early work on an operant and classical condi-
tioning analysis of language (Staats, 1996). He
had discarded Hullian principles of behavior in
search of more conditioning-based explanations
of behavior. Much of what Staats was doing at
the time was groundbreaking work. He incor-
porated token-based systems of reinforcement
into reading programs for children with devel-
opmental disabilities. Staats used the term psy-

180 GUERCIO

chological behaviorism to describe what he
called a full behavioral theory of personality.
His explorations of the way that stimuli can
function as reinforcers based upon deprivation
or satiation were a precursor to the concept of
the motivating operation (Staats, 1996). The
incorporation of the states of deprivation and
satiation were firmly rooted in first-generation
theoretical foundations. The work done at Ari-
zona State University was one of the pioneering
training programs for behaviorally based train-
ing and was dubbed Fort Skinner in the desert.
The program was based as much on psycholog-
ical behaviorism as it was on the radical behav-
iorism of Skinner. Additional work by these
first-generation pioneers continued in earnest.

Montrose Wolf and Todd Risley were the
first researchers to apply the principles of oper-
ant conditioning to children with autism (Wolf,
2001). Their initial study addressed several tar-
get behaviors of a three-year-old boy identified
as Dickie in their paper. The young child dis-
played significant episodes of self-injurious be-
havior (SIB), physical aggression toward oth-
ers, and refusal to engage in many routines
throughout the course of his day. The authors
were able to decrease the frequency of Dickie’s
aggression over the course of their treatment of
the child. It is interesting to note that they also
implemented their operant procedures such as
time out and removal of Dickie’s plate from the
table when he threw food in both the home and
clinic settings (Wolf, Risley, & Mees, 1963).
This set the stage for parent training programs
that are currently in practice today. The verbal
behavior of the child was also treated using
modeling procedures and differential reinforce-
ment. This initial study set the groundwork for
future applications of behavioral technology to
children with autism.

Ivar Lovaas, a University of Washington
graduate, and his research program at the Uni-
versity of California and Los Angeles (UCLA)
expounded upon the initial work of Risley and
Wolf (1967). This work in the application of
behavioral principles to the behavior of children
diagnosed with autism produced an eventual
avalanche of research. Lovaas’ research pro-
duced a clinical program that specified the
types of interventions that children should be
exposed to. This program incorporated a va-
riety of techniques involving both reinforce-
ment and punishment procedures as well as

parental involvement (Lovaas & Bucher,
1974). The intervention produced significant
results with respect to SIB, increased produc-
tion of verbal behavior, and led to social skills
improvements. The behavior of children di-
agnosed with autism were compared to a con-
trol group of children that had not received
the treatment, and significant differences
were observed between the two groups. In an
early article, Lovaas, Koegel, Simmons, and
Long (1973) examined the maintenance of the
gains that were achieved at the end of the pro-
gram. It was very clear that children placed
within institutional settings after such training
tended to regress when they were assessed in
the future, whereas those that returned to live
with parents that had been specifically trained in
the procedures tended to retain the behavioral
gains (Lovaas et al., 1973). Lovaas was one of
many researchers addressing the behavioral
needs of children as the focus in the field broad-
ened to more diverse applications of the science
to human issues.

Growing Pains and Shifts in Focus

Donald Baer’s impact on the burgeoning field
of applied behavior analysis (ABA) is hard to
measure given its scope. Most introductory be-
havior analysis students know of Don Baer pri-
marily through the seminal article that he
penned with Wolf and Risley in 1968 that out-
lined the dimensions of applied behavior anal-
ysis (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968). Short of cute
acronyms that students learn to regurgitate these
seven dimensions, few of these students are
aware of some of the overall contributions that
this man made to the field that go well beyond
that article (Dixon, Reed, Smith, Belisle, &
Jackson, 2015).

Baer, along with Montrose Wolf and Todd
Risley (BWR), penned that seminal paper in the
initial issue of the Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis. The paper has been called the gold
standard with respect to how behavior analytic
research should be conducted. The paper also
has an additional distinction of being what
Critchfield and Reed (2017, p. 131) call a “po-
lemic, a Declaration of Independence from the
experimental analysis of behavior.” It has been
the focal point of training in applied behavior
analysis for a number of years, but few students
realize its role in this early debate in the field.

181IMPORTANCE OF HISTORY: PART 2

The 1968 article served to underscore the utility
of behavior change that is of social importance.
This was intended to be in sharp contrast with
the prevailing tone of the time, where the focus
was on the precise methodological manner in
which laboratory research was conducted. Al-
though this research was of vital importance to
the field, the rigor that was to accompany it was
neither clinically appropriate nor possible in
settings outside of the carefully arranged envi-
ronment of the laboratory. Settings outside of
the lab did not allow for the degree of control
exerted in laboratory settings. The BWR article,
as well as others that will be detailed in this
article, are foundational pieces of literature in
our field and should help to guide the progres-
sion of the science and practice of ABA.

We should value the key publications that
contribute to how the field of behavior analysis
has evolved. The progression from behavioral
psychology to applied behavior analysis to cog-
nitive behavior therapy (CBT) and other clinical
practices all involve variants of conceptual is-
sues and technological use of key interventions
that all students and practitioners of behavior
analysis should be well aware. Sidman has aptly
pointed out how the research history in a field of
study “does not just present what is known but
points out what we need to know, and suggests
how we might find out” (Sidman, 1995, unpagi-
nated preface). Some of the early pioneers of
ABA made strong statements as to what should
be expected in academic pursuits and practitio-
ner training.

Don Baer specifically asserted that students
should be advised related to the impartation of
research skills and the reinforcement of the con-
sequences of increased methodical and clinical
rigor. He stated that his purpose was to produce
students who would be ardent researchers who
would publish consistently throughout their ca-
reers (Budd & Stokes, 2003). Another key foun-
dational tenet that Baer espoused was an insis-
tence on sound empirical proof for the
assertions and analysis that was based upon
observable data. These tenets are firmly
grounded in first-generation underpinnings. Re-
cent years have shown increases in the demand
for ABA services and the tendency to try and
meet these needs through training programs that
may not be as comprehensive as they need to be
(Guercio & Murray, 2014). In order to provide
a well-rounded practitioner, the historical trends

and scientific shifts that have occurred within
the field need to be acknowledged and appreci-
ated (Dixon et al., 2015). The vast majority of
the training programs in applied behavior anal-
ysis are not meeting the standard as Baer de-
fined it. A key reason for Baer’s standards was
the intense competition within the field that
arose in the late 1960s and 1970s primarily due
to friction between two primary camps in the
behavioral field.

These camps were the experimental control
group and what has been called the social va-
lidity camp as a result of the impact of the BWR
article (Rutherford, 2009). The experimental
control group was steeply based in the experi-
mental analysis of behavior (EAB). The ten-
sions that arose were founded in the belief that
we needed more information from laboratory
studies prior to making the leap from the lab to
the field (Rutherford, 2009). The social validity
group argued that the primary goal in any in-
tervention was the impact that it made in mak-
ing the lives of others better. Practical impor-
tance reigned in opposition to laboratory rigor.
This tension was an important element of the
growth of the field of behavior analysis. Similar
to Watson’s (1913) behavioral manifesto Psy-
chology as the Behaviorist Views It being a
response to the psychoanalytic and structural-
based theories of his day, so was BWR a re-
sponse to the EAB proponents of their day
(Critchfield & Reed, 2017). A new outlet was
now being provided for those in the social va-
lidity camp.

The Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
followed the guidelines established for it by
Montrose Wolf that addressed his primary con-
cern that the encouragement of field research
and the pursuit of lawfulness in the behavior of
everyday people could foster a new behavioral
technology. The end result was what some have
termed a “crisis,” in that the guidelines expli-
cated by BWR lauded social validity over ev-
erything else (Critchfield & Reed, 2017). This
led to research that seemed to be straying from
EAB. The ways that it was departing from EAB
was the shift in focus to social validity, in vivo
applications, and a departure from the rigor of
the lab. This debate continues to the present
day, where training programs in behavior anal-
ysis and the guidelines for how they are set up
seem to be stressing more of the polemic of
BWR as opposed to a thorough understanding

182 GUERCIO

of the science of behavior analysis. (Risley,
2001). The profit is there in terms of turning out
vast numbers of students, but the in-depth un-
derstanding of our evolution as a field has been
abandoned to some degree.

Pursuant to the tensions at that time was the
growing dissatisfaction and confidence that the
field was losing touch with its scholarly foun-
dations (Poling, Picker, Grossett, Hall-Johnson,
& Holbrook, 1981). It is close to 50 years re-
moved from this sentiment that we are moving
away from our scholarly foundations and it has
become a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. Our
institutions are producing students that are very
familiar with BWR and are not able to make the
scholarly shift to some of the important exper-
imental and scientific roots that should be re-
vered in the field (Critchfield & Reed, 2017).
The focus has shifted to funding mechanisms,
narrow therapeutic focus (autism), and our fo-
cus on EAB, and its scholarly roots have suf-
fered as a result. This suffering is manifested in
a decreased focus on the experimental roots of
behaviorism. The concerns are real, as Hayes
and colleagues stated when they expressed trep-
idation with the fact that “we are becoming less
concerned with basic principles of behavior and
more concerned with techniques,” (Hayes, Rin-
cover, & Solnick, 1980, p. 283). We must be
able to traverse the intellectual divide to avoid
the dilemma that Sidman (2011, p. 973) spoke
of when he feared that a lack of grounding in the
conceptual foundations of the field would not
allow practitioners to be “able to place their
particular problem in a more general context
and thereby deal with it . . . successfully.” This
ineffectiveness can now dilute the increased
demand for ABA services that currently exists if
consumers are not satisfied with the work of
ineffectual clinicians. The end result could be a
“second crisis” where the technological ex-
cesses of the day may lead to poor clinical
implementation and dissemination by practitio-
ners who are not able to link practice back to the
basic principles upon which it was founded.
Graduate training in applied behavior analysis
should take all of this into account by providing
ample education and training experiences as to
how basic, scientific, behavioral principles lead
to our understanding of human behavior. The
more limited the range of intellectual and liter-
ature-based exemplars that students receive, the
more narrow their professional repertoire will

become (Critchfield & Reed, 2017). Perhaps
BWR was evidence of the shifting sands of a
discipline and added to the continuing debate
over what the field of ABA should evolve into.
This evolution was starting to emerge as differ-
ent conceptualizations of behavioral problems
were espoused.

The March Toward the Second Generation
of Behavior Therapy in Behaviorism

The transition to a broader conceptualization
of environment– behavior interaction sought to
examine behavioral processes that could not be
overtly observed. The first generation has been
described as the emphasis on the measurable
properties of behavior and the subsequent pre-
diction and control that such measurement af-
fords the clinician. The pioneers of behaviorism
such as Skinner, Watson, and Pavlov all helped
to develop the concepts of the environmental
influences upon behavior. Vague descriptions of
disorders using clinical concepts that were
poorly measurable were replaced by a focus on
observable target behaviors that were inherent
to the specific disorder being treated. The direct
contingencies that were related to the disorder
were manipulated using both respondent and
operant methodologies. Behavior change meth-
odologies based upon covert processes that
were not observable were evident as the CBT
movement was established.

Changes to cognitively based constructs such
as dysfunctional attitudes and irrational thought
patterns were termed content changes and were
thought to be causal factors in behavior change
during the second generation of behavior ther-
apy. The “first generation” represented a rebel-
lion against the prevailing beliefs in the field.
Some of the earliest behavioral pioneers held
that theories should be based upon a solid foun-
dation of principles. The clinical traditions that
existed at the time were not based upon sound
scientific principles and left more to be desired
from the perspective of a true science of behav-
ior. Skinner changed this view somewhat as he
warned against using conceptualized entities as
causes of behavior, which shall be addressed
later in this article (Skinner, 1950). The use of
vague concepts and the inability to measure
many of the covert mental process that were
proposed for behavior led to the pursuit of in-
creased order and a more thorough scientific

183IMPORTANCE OF HISTORY: PART 2

analysis when first-generation methodologies
emerged. As behavioral treatment progressed,
clinicians started to evaluate the role of covert
cognitive behavior and its capacity to influence
unwanted behavior. Prior to the initiation of the
second generation of behavior therapy, behav-
iorists were split into separate camps of behav-
iorism and neobehaviorism.

The inclusion of observable behavior and the
empirically based treatment protocols produced
a significant impact in the field of psychology
via the first generation of behavior therapy.
There was a general consensus in the neobehav-
iorist camp that something was not complete
with respect to first-generation conceptualiza-
tions of behavior (Hull, 1952). The issues of
private events and the ability to address them
within the context of behavior therapy were said
to be missing in the analysis. This movement
spawned what has been called the “second gen-
eration” of behavior therapy.

As new conceptions of behavioral events
were being formulated, radical behaviorism as
espoused by Skinner was in the process of sup-
planting the long-held Watsonian tradition. Al-
though Watson did not expressly prohibit the
study of private events, his conceptualization of
them differed from what Skinner was propos-
ing. Watson has stated that “At every point, we
should describe all psychology in terms of what
we see the organism doing. When we study
implicitly bodily processes, we are studying
thought” (Watson, 1920, p. 100). Skinner’s
analysis was based upon a complete behavioral
analysis of the events in question, whether overt
or covert. His belief was that once the contin-
gencies that controlled the response were iden-
tified, a more objective analysis had been made
(Skinner, 1945). This is the core of Skinner’s
break with Watson, that private events needed
to be assimilated in a complete scientific ac-
count of behavior.

As theorists such as Meichenbaum and Ban-
dura moved on to study cognitive mediational
events, the neobehaviorists continued to assert
that they had been dealing with cognition all
along (Wolpe, 1980). The primary distinguish-
ing factor of the second generation of behavior
therapy was the inclusion of nonobservable
cognitive states into the etiology of psychiatric
conditions. The evolution of behavior therapy
during this time period is evidence of this shift.

Second-generation notions of the etiology of
behavior developed as the result of a confluence
of different schools of thought (Hayes, 2004).
Behavior therapy approaches were a huge com-
ponent of these changes. These approaches had
more to do with the manner in which we exam-
ine the data that are obtained as opposed to
particular clinical techniques (Franks & Brady,
1970). Clinical issues are examined based upon
the observable, measurable behavior that ac-
companies them in the behavior therapy model.
These variables are then systematically manip-
ulated through the course of treatment. The
principles of learning are at the forefront of
behavior therapy approaches, most of which
came out of the laboratory in the earlier stages
of the field of behaviorism. The treatments that
were bred from these approaches were based
upon acute awareness of the environment in
which both the clinician and the client were
operating, such as the clinical session often con-
ducted in an office setting (Eysenck, 1959,
1972; Franks & Brady, 1970).

Was There a Cognitive Revolution? The
Second Generation Is Introduced

The frequently held tenet that behaviorism
sought to dismiss the role of the “mind” in
behavioral processes might have served as a
catalyst for the second generation of behavior
therapy, often labeled as the cognitive revolu-
tion in therapy. The revolution was an overtak-
ing of current environmental-based etiologies
serving as explanations for the etiology of be-
havior with a shift to more cognitive-based con-
structs to define behavior. The rise of cognitiv-
ism was said to have contributed to the death of
behaviorism at the time. Intervening variables
were now being used to account for behavior.
These mechanisms were not measurable and
were assumed to be the primary causal factors
in the overt behavior that was observed. The
flood of new concepts related to the mind and
how information was processed led to what
many called the death of behaviorism (Baars,
1986). Computer metaphors for how the brain
worked became a foundation for purported
deeper excursions into the mind’s role in behav-
ior. The cognitive revolution was the result of a
confluence of factors.

The rise of cognitivism is typically viewed as
being a significant impetus for the cognitive

184 GUERCIO

revolution that was instituted in the second gen-
eration of behavior therapy as it is described in
the present article. The broader context of cog-
nitive science was also a huge component of the
second generation (Watrin & Darwich, 2012).
The shift in focus on cognitive processes was a
radical deviation from the behavioral focus that
had been in practice. This was a deviation, but
not a displacement. Many accounts of the sec-
ond generation underscore that along with its
rise to prominence, there was a corresponding
decline or even death of the behavioral point of
view. This does not appear to be the case. The
manner in which we review the history can
color our opinion of the events that were to
transpire. Carr (1987) states this very elo-
quently: “The facts speak only when the histo-
rian calls on them; it is he who decides to which
facts to give the floor, and in what order or
context” (p. 11). The strength of the narratives
concerning the death of behaviorism were so
strong that it was called a revolution and that
those who are not true students of this history
can be susceptible to taking assertion of the
death of behaviorism at face value. A more
thorough historical analysis points to significant
paradigm shifts, but the absence of a wholesale
revolution. We should be careful not to convey
the story at the expense of behaviorism. The
cognitivist movement was marked by a number
of heterogeneous circumstances that involved
not only psychology, but linguistics, computer
science, philosophy, anthropology, and neuro-
science. Although there were a number of novel
applications to address behavioral issues, be-
haviorism remained alive during and well after
the cognitive revolution. The most parsimoni-
ous explanation is that, rather than the death of
behaviorism and the rise of cognitive based
accounts, the two approaches continued to co-
exist. Not only did they coexist, but they were
combined in treatment packages using both ap-
proaches. The popularity of these treatments
was spurred on by numerous randomized clini-
cal trials that showed the efficacy of these ap-
proaches. Along with the rise in cognitive ap-
proaches, the efficacy of CBT in treating
unipolar depression was documented exten-
sively (Antonuccio, Danton, & DeNelsky,
1995). Different treatment models arose based
upon this new perspective.

The more popular and familiar treatments
during this time period were cognitive therapy

for depression espoused by Aaron Beck
(1970) and rational emotive behavior therapy
as delineated by Albert Ellis (1957). The use
of cognitive– behavioral methods is centuries
old and dates back to the experiments of
Anton Mesmer and Jean Martin Charcot (El-
lis, 2001). Although the efficacy of these
treatments was documented when compared
to psychodynamic approaches, the etiology
and theoretical foundations of many of the
second-generation therapies were based more
on proposed private covert processes than on
the principles of science.

Bridging the Gap Between the First and
Second Generations

The term behavior therapy itself was coined
by Skinner and Lindsley (1954); Lazarus
(1958), and Eysenck (1960). The intent was to
mirror what Sir Francis Bacon had written years
earlier, “The first distemper of learning, when
men study words, not matter” (Dicks, 1955, p.
182). Bacon espoused the importance of observ-
able phenomena when it came to a scientific
analysis. The study of words as he phrased it
were mere self-reports or mental constructs that
could not be readily identified and measured.
The foundation of Bacon’s scientific doctrines
was enumerative induction in the fact-finding
process. Skinner was very vocal in his alle-
giance to Bacon’s view of the natural sciences
(Macdonald, 2007). This was to the point that
Skinner identified himself as an ardent Baco-
nian. Numerous sections of Skinner’s Walden II
are formulated based upon Bacon’s New Atlan-
tis. Bacon and Skinner both stated that the ex-
periment was the “royal road” to reality. Their
point was that those who were the most familiar
with the real world were not the contemplators
but rather the manipulators, the ones who could
produce the effects desired (Smith, 1992, p.
217). The scrutiny during second-generation
models was now shifting to mediational events
as opposed to the overarching environmental
approach espoused by Watson and Skinner. The
tides were starting to shift to basic questions
that would usher in the second generation of
behavior therapy. Examination was now mov-
ing to the possibility of cognitive events playing
a role in behavior and psychological conditions.

Concepts such as irrational thoughts, cogni-
tive schemas, and faulty information processing

185IMPORTANCE OF HISTORY: PART 2

styles took precedence over operant analysis,
respondent conditioning, and a primary focus
on environmental determinants in explaining
the etiology of behavior. Treatments were
aimed at modifying “dysfunctional belief sys-
tems” and faulty “information processing”
(Beck, 1970). A bevy of new terms were used in
addition to a goal of presenting an alternative
model to not only psychoanalysis, but now to
some of the basic tenets of the first generation
that were now viewed as inadequate. Most of
the converts to second-generation terminology
started to use terms such as “cognitive behavior
therapy” (CBT) to avoid a complete abandon-
ment of first-generation sensibilities (Hayes,
2004). Although the appearance of a complete
change of direction was present, much attention
was paid to avoid totally discounting empiri-
cally supported first-generation change ele-
ments. It could be said that the first generation
was expounded upon by the second, while still
incorporating a number of its major tenets. The
change in focus from purely observable envi-
ronment/behavior interactions to the acceptance
of mediational accounts in the second genera-
tion was done because of their practically being
abandoned in first generation formulations. The
improvements that were made from an empiri-
cal perspective in the first generation appeared
to now be reverting back to some of the ap-
proaches that were deemed to be faulty and
immeasurable that led to first-generation tech-
nologies being proposed in the first place. These
changes were lamented by those endorsing the
strict controls that were possible in laboratory
settings.

Primary Figures in Second-Generation
Conceptualizations

The second generation was ushered in by a
drastic change in the way that the etiology of
behavior and psychological problems was
viewed. The primary components of this “cog-
nitive revolution,” as it has come to be known,
was a focus on inner agents of behavior change.
Some of the earliest proponents of CBT based
their formulations predominantly on cognitive
conceptualizations (Early & Grady, 2017). The
early proponents of the second generation of
behavior therapy were drifting from their psy-
choanalytic roots as well as the laboratory as
Skinner detailed, but displayed some affinity

with behaviorism, espousing the clear goals of
measurable behavior change. The primary dif-
ference between first- and second-generation
formulations of behavior was in their central
thesis about behavior and its origins in thought
processes and other internal mechanisms that
could not be observed. The internalized catalyst
of thought processes serving as mediating
forces and causes was central to its etiology.
The timeline of this shift to mediating forces
occurred over the course of several decades (see
Figure 1). The conceptualization of thought pro-
cesses differs significantly from a purely behav-
ioral explanation of human behavior.

The coalescence of behavioral and cognitive
formulations of behavior was fostered by their
similarities but hampered somewhat by their
differences. The more comprehensive approach
to blend the two approaches, but the utilization
of two such different approaches, introduces
potential confounds as to which approach is
more efficacious when it is used clinically as a
treatment package.

Some of the dissatisfaction that was bred
through applications of behavioral interven-
tions to problem behavior led to a blended
approach. The disciplines of behavior therapy
and cognitive therapy were blended into what
has been termed cognitive behavior therapy
(CBT). This blended approach used the
strengths of an operant analysis of behavioral
issues as well as incorporating hypothesized
inner causes of behavior. Operant elements
were included that identified the maintaining
environmental variables in both assessment and
intervention. The use of inner causes in the
etiology of behavior was approached with much
suspicion by adherents to the behavioral tradi-
tion. The second generation of behavior therapy
was such a stark contrast to the first that many
labeled it as a revolution. Arguments have been
made as to whether or not a true revolution
occurred, but the fact remains that there was a
significant paradigm change that had taken
place. Paradigms start to shift when our current
explanations of phenomenon no longer conform
to what nature reveals to us on a regular basis
(Kuhn, 1963). The explanations of the past are
no longer sufficient and require elaboration in
order to better conceptually frame the phenom-
enon that is being examined. The phenomenon
of interest was human behavior and how it

186 GUERCIO

could be analyzed in order to better predict and
control behavior.

Although cognitive mediating variables and
computer analogies were thought to present a
better schema of human behavior, new avenues
were requested to better explain complex hu-
man behavior and private events. Dysfunctional
beliefs were now held by some to be at the heart
of behavioral or psychological disorders (Bou-
ton, Mineka, & Barlow, 2001; Ellis, 2001).
Many of the overt environment behavior rela-
tionships that had served as a foundation for
behaviorism were being elaborated upon. The
refinements that were postulated to have been
unearthed with the second generation of behav-
ior therapy still left a number of unanswered
questions. Many clinicians at the time were
starting to focus on the manner in which the
person was evaluating covert events as being a
place to focus treatment efforts. One of the chief
theorists at the time was Aaron T. Beck.

Aaron T. Beck and the Rise of CBT

Aaron T. Beck made a break from psycho-
analytic leanings early in his career to more of

a cognitive– behavioral focus in 1961. During
this time period, he was on sabbatical from
the University of Pennsylvania’s psychiatry
department in the midst of a department-wide
battle over the place of psychoanalysis in
future treatment modalities. Beck began to
examine depression and the current treatment
options that were present (Beck, 1963; Beck,
1991). His new treatment theory was to ap-
pear in the Archives of General Psychiatry a
few years later (Beck, 1963). Many mark this
as the beginning of the cognitive therapy
movement and what was to become the cen-
terpiece to the cognitive behavior therapy
movement (Rosner, 2012).

Beck was to arrive at his conceptualization of
depression based upon his inability to confirm
his hypothesis that depression was not a form of
inverted hostility. His conclusions were that,
once wish fulfillment was removed from the
analysis, there was nothing to it (Rosner, 2012).
He now stated from 1963 forward that cognitive
psychology was more amenable to experimental
investigation than a psychoanalytic perspective
and was closer to his daily observations in prac-

Prominent Figures Time Period Classification

John BroadusWatson

Mary Cover Jones

Edwin R. Guthrie

Rosalie Raynor

1915-1925 Classical

First Generation

Kenneth Spence

Sid Bijou

Clark Hull

Ed Tolman

1936-1948 Neo (Hull) and purposive (Tolman)

First generation

Fred Keller

Nate Schoenfeld

1947-1950 First Generation

B.F.Skinner

Don Baer

Israel Goldiamond

Arthur Staats

Ivar Lovaas

1954-1973 First Generation

Montrose Wolf

Todd Risley

1968-1978 First Generation

Albert Elis

Aaron Beck

Albert Bandura

Donald Meichenbaum

1981-2001

Second Generation

Figure 1. Time scale of the development of behaviorism and behavior therapy beginning
with classical behaviorism and first-generation paradigms through those promulgated in the
second generation.

187IMPORTANCE OF HISTORY: PART 2

tice. It was out of these intellectual struggles
that the Beck Depression Inventory was born
(Beck, 1984; Rosner, 2012). Throughout his
career, he struggled to distance himself from his
psychoanalytic training, as evidenced in this
letter to John Bowlby in 1981:

It might be a point of curiosity therefore for you to
know that my psychiatric training was completely and
exclusively psychoanalytic. At the present time in fact
I am trying to reformulate many of the basic psycho-
analytic concepts into cognitive terms. (Rosner, 2012,
p. 2)

The concept of automatic thoughts in depres-
sion was one of these reformulations.

The centerpiece of Beck’s cognitive therapy
approach for depression was to address what he
defined as the automatic streams of negative
thought that purportedly plagued those with de-
pression. His theory was based on how he pro-
posed that people processed or interpreted in-
formation. The underlying theme was that many
people may have a similar experience, but his
depressed patients tended to interpret these ex-
periences in a distorted manner. His depictions
of these “thought processes” produced terms
such as catastrophizing, overgeneralization, and
other cognitive distortions that led to mood dis-
turbance. The process of identifying these mal-
adaptive processes and correcting them was at
the core of his approach. The applications to
depression were only the beginning of the work
done by second-generation cognitive behavior
therapy.

The Rational Emotive Therapy of
Albert Ellis

Albert Ellis (2001) held that the use of cog-
nitive– behavioral agents in personality change
were actually centuries old. He maintained that
the experiments of Franz Anton Mesmer, Jean
Martin Charcot, and others were heralds of the
second generation of behavior therapy well be-
fore such distinctions were even identified.
Epictetus (1890) wrote in The Enchiridion that
“people are not disturbed by things, but by the
views which they take of them” (quoted by
Ellis, 2001, p. 186).

The role of choice in the decisions that hu-
mans make was found in the writings of Ki-
erkegaard (1953) and Sartre (1968) and relates
to the concept that the views that people take of
things is at the core of what disturbs them. Both

viewpoints imply intervening variables as
causes for behavior. The driving force behind
Ellis and his version of these ancient influences
was the predominance of irrational or dysfunc-
tional beliefs in psychological maladies.

Ellis outlined 12 common irrational beliefs
that he identified as accompanying his patient’s
neurotic feelings and behavior (Ellis, 2001).
The primary thrust of his clinical methods was
to actively dispute these beliefs via empirical,
logical, and pragmatic means. The specificity
that was entailed in this approach brought much
more detail to the table than had previous cog-
nitively oriented interventions such as those
represented in psychodynamic theory. Well
over a thousand studies have documented these
approaches with a variety of populations (Beck,
1991). Around the same time period, another
primary figure in second-generation conceptu-
alizations of behavior was Albert Bandura.

Albert Bandura and Modeling and Social
Learning Theory

Albert Bandura reached the conclusion that
challenged the existing premise of radical be-
haviorism. His theory acknowledges the role of
positive reinforcement for direct overt behavior,
but adds a social learning element whereby hu-
man behavior can be learned through the obser-
vation of the behavior of others. Bandura al-
luded to the initiating role of cognition in social
learning scenarios (Early & Grady, 2017). His
theory left the door open to a cognitive inter-
pretation when he included the role of expecta-
tions of reinforcement that may lead to learning
as opposed to direct reinforcement (Bandura,
1986). His behavioral formulations of behavior
at the time were related to the ability of the
individual to influence events around him (Ka-
zdin, 1978). The demonstration of a person’s
ability to exert this influence was a process that
he likened to self-control. Social learning theory
postulated that self-control highlights the influ-
ence that the individual can have on overt
events in his environment without excess focus
on the environment’s role in this process.

The existing first-generation view espoused
by behaviorism was now being challenged by a
viewpoint holding that human knowledge and
behavior is active and constructive, involving
more elements than just environment– behavior
interactions. Each person was seen as capable of

188 GUERCIO

constructing their own reality, similar to the
core etiology of rational emotive therapy teach-
ing clients how to change their view of situa-
tions and stimuli in order to try and change their
responses (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). This view-
point differed from previous conceptualizations
in that the stimuli that preceded responses were
subject to internal processes that could change
what was observed. These processes were the
constructs of evaluation and assessment of the
stimuli that had been experienced by the person.
This was a purely mediational model. The ef-
fects of these external environmental forces on
behavior was now being interpreted in light of
the individual’s perceptions and reactions to
what had occurred in the environment. The be-
havior therapy techniques that were pursued in
second-generation models targeted the change
of cognitive processes and was a significantly
different conceptualization than that proposed
in first-generation conceptualizations. The phil-
osophical intent was to provide a more compre-
hensive treatment paradigm than the options
available through the behavioral and cognitive
approaches in isolation. Many of the CBT ap-
proaches that were being endorsed at the time
had a number of components that mirrored
those being used during the first generation. The
work of Donald Meichenbaum is a testament to
the incorporation of first-generation approaches
with the different views being adopted in the
second generation.

Stress Inoculation Training

Donald Meichenbaum fashioned his variant
of CBT based upon some of the work that was
done by Ellis and Beck. His work incorporated
learning history formulations that were charac-
teristic of first-generation models along with
second-generation cognitive-based therapy. The
distinction between adaptive thought process
and ones that were unproductive came to serve
as a guidepost for the formulation of his own
brand of CBT based upon thought-stopping or
stress-management practices.

Meichenbaum saw his contributions to the
field as setting the table to focus less on the laws
of learning and more on what he called infor-
mation processing. His attempts were to bridge
the gap between cognition and behavior
(Meichenbaum, 2017). His new treatment ap-
proach was dubbed cognitive behavior modifi-

cation and was introduced in the midst of what
was called the cognitive revolution. The pri-
mary thrust of his approach was to bolster the
learning theory of the time as well as concep-
tualizing covert behavior that he stated could
not be explained through strictly behavioral
models of learning, in his estimation. One of the
core tenets of his approach was his formulation
that stress reactions can be determined from the
additional information that is based upon cli-
ent’s prior experience with stressful situations
and their reactions to them (Meichenbaum,
Turk, & Burstein, 1975). The approach in-
volved three core elements.

The initial element or phase of stress inocu-
lation training involved an educational compo-
nent. The client was to be presented with an
overview of the stress response and how it was
manifested in those who experienced it. This
conceptual foundation was then built upon by
the introduction of the second element of the
training of coping and self-management skills
to address the aforementioned stress response
systems in the client. The skills were to be
rehearsed frequently so that the client could
become fluent in their use in the event of a
stressful life event. The client was then pro-
vided with an opportunity to utilize the third
element, which was the practice of these skills
during exposure to a variety of graded stressors
according to stimuli identified by the client
(Meichenbaum & Novaco, 1985). These proce-
dures were first implemented with law enforce-
ment personnel to determine their superior in
vivo efficacy.

The training of law enforcement officers con-
sisted of a similar protocol with ordered steps to
train the procedures that could be used in the
field for officers. These procedures had been
successfully implemented with others persons
that he had treated that experienced signifi-
cant problems with anger (Meichenbaum &
Novaco, 1985). One of the core components
of his stress inoculation approach was coping
self-statements. These statements were covert
verbal behavior that the client was to engage
in to address stressful events as they were
encountered. Prominent in his description of
some of the factors that led to anger and
aggression were what Meichenbaum called
setting events. The way that he defined setting
events was the same way that behaviorists
define it. These events were defined as phys-

189IMPORTANCE OF HISTORY: PART 2

iological, social, or environmental events that
increased the likelihood of an aggressive re-
sponse as he defined it in his work on anger.
His description of the anger response was laden
with behavioral terminology such as situational
cues, modes of responding, and the conse-
quences of in vivo scenes. Although concepts
such as concept formulation and cognitive prep-
aration were also incorporated into his concep-
tualization of treatment for anger issues, many
of the components of his approach were behav-
ioral in nature, with a cognitive overlay. The
skills training that Meichenbaum used also fits
this same mold. His description of skills train-
ing is very behavioral in nature with respect to
antecedent coping strategies that are prefaced
by the identification of muscle tightness and the
ultimate utilization of stress management skills.

The manner in which self-management skills
were taught bears a great resemblance to behav-
ioral skills training. Scenarios for intervention
are derived from group meetings and rehearsed
with a trainer. These subjects are then trained to
use the statements in vivo. The trainer is there
to make sure that the strategies are employed
in real-life situations. Meichenbaum used
cognitive terminology to describe what looks
like a behavioral procedure. He describes the
process as self-regulated private speech that
functions as cues for the clients to assist them
with respect to their thoughts, feelings, and
behavior. This can then impact the person’s
appraisal of the situation and how they re-
spond to it. This formulation is not far from a
behavioral approach based upon self-gener-
ated rules.

Evaluation of Second-Generation Models

The advances that were sought were not be-
ing realized within this second generation of
treatment models. One of the biggest drawbacks
within the history of the second-generation ther-
apies is that they did not perform well with
respect to scientific testing (Hayes & Strosahl,
1999). The research that was conducted with
CBT continued to demonstrate that measures of
cognitive change were not the primary catalyst
for the improvements observed with CBT
(Burns & Spangler, 2001). Repeated investiga-
tions into these therapies have led some cogni-
tive therapists to state that there may be no
additional improvement noted by providing

cognitive interventions in CBT (Dobson &
Khatri, 2000). The lack of significant progress
in these areas begged for change in treatment
modalities.

Several of the tenets of cognitive accounts
have been challenged in the literature. This was
evident in the examination of the efficacy of the
behavioral components included in CBT-based
interventions (Watrin & Darwich, 2012).

One of the perceived mechanisms of change
that was fostered by CBT interventions was a
change in what the CBT theorists called dys-
functional attitudes (DAs). The mechanism of
behavior change in CBT interventions has been
postulated to involve changes in depression as a
result of changing DAs. The literature reflects
that the mechanisms of action in CBT treat-
ments are murky at best. Research has contin-
ued to demonstrate that changes in DAs do not
mediate changes in depression (Antonuccio et
al., 1995). The presence of DAs has been shown
to have little causal impact on measures of
depression in general (Hollon, DeRubeis, & Ev-
ans, 1987). Burns and Spangler (2001) exam-
ined a large sample of patients seeking treat-
ment for anxiety and depression with respect to
changes in their DAs and how that related to
improvements in their measures of depression.
Their study showed that DAs did not have a
causal effect on the measures of depression and
anxiety that they employed in their study (Burns
& Spangler, 2001). These findings pose concep-
tual challenges for Beck’s cognitive mediation
hypothesis and indicate that mediational models
as espoused in CBT approaches may not be
responsible for the behavioral improvements
observed during CBT treatments. These con-
ceptual issues are at odds with the formulations
of those making the shift to more cognitive
based approaches.

Some Closing Thoughts

The effectiveness of CBT approaches has
been examined widely. One of the key findings
of meta-analysis-based studies of the efficacy of
CBT approaches has shown their efficacy com-
pared to other psychoanalytic based approaches.
An area where they have not performed so well
has been when compared against behaviorally
based interventions. Component analyses of
CBT-based interventions have not shown their
efficacy over and beyond the behavioral inter-

190 GUERCIO

ventions that they were proposed to supplant
(Ahn & Wampold, 2001; Spielmans, Pasek, &
McFall, 2007). A complete comparison of the
efficacy of these first- and second-generation
approaches is beyond the scope of this article,
but the data do not indicate that significant
clinical ground was gained with second-
generation mediational-based approaches. The
early pioneers in the history of behaviorism and
behavior therapy were very clear related to the
etiology of behavior and behavior change pro-
cedures being firmly grounded in environment/
behavior interactions that were observable.

Behavior therapy grew out of dissatisfaction
with psychoanalytic practice. This is not a sit-
uation where these procedures are to be criti-
cized, but rather to acknowledge the broader
framework that behavior therapy brought to the
table. The first and second waves of behavior
therapy were offered as social learning alterna-
tives to the medical model that had been present
at the time that they were introduced (Ullman &
Krasner, 1965). Bandura’s work integrated the
research of Skinner, Wolpe, and Watson while
adding additional social learning components
(Krasner, 2001). It has been noted that the cog-
nitive and behavioral approaches themselves
are two contradictory models. Given this, the
term cognitive behavior therapy can be viewed
as an oxymoron (Krasner, 2001). As behavior
therapy grew and expanded, learning histories
and other behavioral formulations were inte-
grated into the cognitive-based model that it had
once been an alternative to. Skinner’s work was
always central to behavior therapy, as evi-
denced by his work with Ogden Lindsley at
Metropolitan State Hospital in Massachusetts
(Skinner, Solomon, & Lindsley, 1953). Skinner
and Don Baer were both pioneers of first-
generation behavioral models.

Don Baer was a champion of truth and de-
manded proof in all of his pursuits. He stated
that “when you give up proof, you give up
knowing” (Baer, 2001, p. 263.) He consistently
stated that cognitive– behavioral therapists
needed the addition of operant logic. He was
obviously a proponent of first-generation meth-
odologies. During the sea of change brought on
by CBT, Baer warned us to stand our ground
and recognize what this meant. The operant
nature of behavior must be understood, and the
use of sound research practices would assist in
discovering the truth in research matters. He

contended that CBT paid behavior analysis an
immense compliment by adopting some of its
procedures. Cognitive theorists also dealt a se-
rious insult by imposing an internal mechanism-
based argument on the behavior analytic thesis
(Baer, 2001). With behavior analysis that is
informed by radical behaviorism, the notion of
private events is not ignored at all, but rather
examined from a different perspective. Baer
preferred to look at first-generation ideas versus
second-generation ideas in terms of the fact that
both have their own evolutionary niche (in the
field), they both prosper and reproduce there,
and each will probably continue to do so (Baer,
1993). Even in the face of these beliefs, his
first-generation roots run deep and he advocated
these core tenets throughout his life. He notes
that a “population with some diversity has a
better chance of surviving some sudden change
in the survival contingencies than a population
with little diversity” (Baer, 2001, pp. 264). As
Krasner (2001) has succinctly stated, the intro-
duction of the word “cognitive” into our nosol-
ogy during the 1970s and 1980s still saw the
core components of behavior therapy remain
intact. The fear that the introduction of this term
would lead to some of the basic scientific as-
sumptions of behavior therapy to be abandoned
never materialized, and empiricism was never
denounced. The poor intellectual formation and
training of students in behavior analysis often
lead to inaccurate representations of the field.
The focus of training is often restricted to early
intervention and applications of the scientific
tenets of behaviorism to that population (Guer-
cio & Murray, 2014). The importance of a
deeper knowledge of the major events ex-
pounded upon in this article is vital to a fuller
understanding of them. Many students today are
unaware of the historical and scientific under-
pinnings of behaviorism detailed throughout
this article. Keller and Schoenfeld asserted that
the verbal behavior of the scientist should be
taken as the central datum to be examined. The
work of pioneers from Watson to Skinner and
the seminal work of Keller and Schoenfeld,
among others, stands as an informative guide
for students that behavioral contingencies are
foundational to our science. The diversity that
Baer refers to is clearly present in the third wave
of behavioral therapy, where the cognitive–
behavioral tradition has been expanded once
again to incorporate the intricacies of more

191IMPORTANCE OF HISTORY: PART 2

complex behavioral patterns. By continuing to
pay attention to the private events that Skinner
wrote about, behaviorism is addressing the sur-
vival contingencies necessary to continue to be
relevant as the landscape of the field of psychol-
ogy changes.

References

Ahn, H., & Wampold, B. E. (2001). Where oh where
are the specific ingredients? A meta-analysis of
component studies in counseling and psychother-
apy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 251–
257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.48.3
.251

Antonuccio, D. O., Danton, W. G., & DeNelsky,
G. Y. (1995). Psychotherapy versus medication for
depression: Challenging the conventional wisdom
with data. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 26, 574–585. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0735-7028.26.6.574

Baars, B. J. (1986). The cognitive revolution in psy-
chology. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Baer, D. M. (1962). A technique of social reinforce-
ment for the study of child behavior: Behavior
avoiding reinforcement withdrawal. Child Devel-
opment, 33, 847– 858. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
1126894

Baer, D. M. (1993). A brief, selective history of the
Department of Human Development and Family
Life at the University of Kansas: The early years.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 569–
572. http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1993.26-569

Baer, D. M. (2001). A small matter of proof. In W. T.
O’Donahue, D. A. Henderson, S. C. Hayes, J. E.
Fisher, & L. J. Hayes (Eds.), A history of the
behavioral therapies: Founders’ personal histo-
ries (pp. 253–265). Reno, NV: Context Press.

Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968).
Some current dimensions of applied behavior anal-
ysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91–
97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1968.1-91

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of though
and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Beck, A. T. (1963). Thinking and depression: I. Id-
iosyncratic content and cognitive distortions. Ar-
chives of General Psychiatry, 9, 324–333. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1963.01720160
014002

Beck, A. T. (1970). Cognitive therapy: Nature and
relation to behavior therapy. Behavior Therapy, 1,
184–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894
(70)80030-2

Beck, A. T. (1984). Cognitive therapy, behavior ther-
apy, psychoanalysis, and pharmacotherapy: The

cognitive continuum. In J. B. Williams & R. L.
Spitzer (Eds.), Psychotherapy research: Where are
we and where should we go? (pp. 114–133). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.

Beck, A. T. (1991). Cognitive therapy. A 30-year
retrospective. American Psychologist, 46, 368–
375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.4
.368

Bijou, S. W. (1957). Patterns of reinforcement and
resistance to extinction in young children. Child
Development, 28, 47–54. http://dx.doi.org/10
.2307/1125999

Bijou, S. W. (2001). Child behavior therapy: Early
history. In W. T. O’Donahue, D. A. Henderson,
S. C. Hayes, J. E. Fisher, & L. J. Hayes (Eds.), A
history of the behavioral therapies: Founders’ per-
sonal histories (pp. 105–124). Reno, NV: Context
Press.

Bijou, S. W., & Orlando, R. (1961). Rapid develop-
ment of multiple-schedule performances with re-
tarded children. Journal of the Experimental Anal-
ysis of Behavior, 4, 7–16. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1901/jeab.1961.4-7

Bouton, M. E., Mineka, S., & Barlow, D. H. (2001).
A modern learning theory perspective on the eti-
ology of panic disorder. Psychological Review,
108, 4–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X
.108.1.4

Brown, L. A., Gaudiano, B. A., & Miller, I. W.
(2011). Investigating the similarities and differ-
ences between practitioners of second- and third-
wave cognitive– behavioral therapies. Behavior
Modification, 35, 187–200. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/0145445510393730

Bruce, D. (1998). The Lashley-Hull debate revisited.
History of Psychology, 1, 69– 84. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/1093-4510.1.1.69

Budd, K. S., & Stokes, T. (2003). A small matter of
proof: The legacy of Donald M. Baer. Reno, NV:
Context Press.

Burns, D. D., & Spangler, D. L. (2001). Do changes
in dysfunctional attitudes mediate changes in de-
pression and anxiety in cognitive behavior ther-
apy? Behavior Therapy, 32, 337–369. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(01)80008-3

Carr, E. H. (1987). What is history? (2nd ed.). Lon-
don, England: Penguin Press.

Critchfield, T. S., & Reed, D. D. (2017). The fuzzy
concept of applied behavior analysis research. Be-
havior Analyst, 40, 123–159. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1007/s40614-017-0093-x

Dicks, H. G. (Ed.), (1955). The advancement of
learning: Selected writings of Francis Bacon. New
York, NY: Modem Library.

Dinsmoor, J. A. (1987). A visit to Bloomington: The
first conference on the experimental analysis of
behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of

192 GUERCIO

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.48.3.251

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.26.6.574

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1126894

http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1993.26-569

http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1968.1-91

http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1963.01720160014002

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894%2870%2980030-2

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.4.368

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1125999

http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1961.4-7

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.1.4

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0145445510393730

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1093-4510.1.1.69

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894%2801%2980008-3

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40614-017-0093-x

Behavior, 48, 441– 445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/
jeab.1987.48-441

Dinsmoor, J. A. (1989). Keller and Schoenfeld’s
principles of psychology. The Behavior Analyst,
12, 213–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF0339
2499

Dixon, M. R., Reed, D. D., Smith, T., Belisle, J., &
Jackson, R. E. (2015). Research rankings of be-
havior analytic graduate training programs and
their faculty. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 8,
7–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40617-015-
0057-0

Dobson, K. S., & Khatri, N. (2000). Cognitive ther-
apy: Looking backward, looking forward. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 56, 907–923. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1002/1097-4679(200007)56:7�907::AID-
JCLP9�3.0.CO;2-I

Early, B. P., & Grady, M. D. (2017). Embracing the
contribution of both behavioral and cognitive the-
ories to cognitive behavior therapy: Maximizing
the richness. Clinical Social Work Journal, 45,
39– 48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10615-016-
0590-5

Ellis, A. (1957). Relational psychotherapy and indi-
vidual psychology. Journal of Individual Psychol-
ogy, 13, 38– 44.

Ellis, A. (2001). The rise of cognitive behavior ther-
apy. In W. T. O’Donahue, D. A. Henderson, S. C.
Hayes, J. E. Fisher, & L. J. Hayes (Eds.), A history
of the behavioral therapies: Founders’ personal
histories (pp. 183–194). Reno, NV: Context Press.

Epictetus. (1890). The works of Epictetus. Boston,
MA: Little, Brown.

Eysenck, H. J. (1959). Learning theory and behaviour
therapy. Journal of Mental Science, 105, 61–75.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjp.105.438.61

Eysenck, H. J. (Ed.). (1960). Behaviour therapy and
the neuroses. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.

Eysenck, H. J. (1972). Behavior therapy is behavior-
istic. Behavior Therapy, 3, 609– 613.

Franks, C. M., & Brady, J. P. (1970). What is behav-
ior therapy and why a new journal? Behavior Ther-
apy, 1, 1–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894
(70)80053-3

Goldiamond, I. (1968). Moral behavior: A functional
analysis. Psychology Today, 2, 31–34, 69 –70.

Goldiamond, I., & Dyrud, J. E. (1968). Some appli-
cations and implications of behavioral analysis and
psychotherapy. In J. M. Shlien (Ed.), Research in
psychotherapy (Vol. 3, pp. 54– 89). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/10546-003

Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing para-
digms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin &
Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative re-
search (pp. 105–117). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Guercio, J. M. (2018). The importance of a deeper
knowledge of the history and theoretical founda-

tions of behavior analysis: 1863–1960. Behavior
Analysis: Research and Practice, 18, 4–15. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/bar0000123

Guercio, J. M., & Murray, W. J. (2014). Licensure
for behavior analysts: The path to responsible and
cooperative action. Behavioral Interventions, 29,
225–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bin.1388

Guthrie, E. R. (1946). Psychological facts and psy-
chological theory. Psychological Bulletin, 43,
1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0061712

Hayes, S. (2004). Acceptance and commitment ther-
apy, relation frame theory, and the third wave of
behavioral and cognitive therapies. Behavior Ther-
apy, 35, 639– 665. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0005-7894(04)80013-3

Hayes, S. C., Rincover, A., & Solnick, J. V. (1980).
The technical drift of applied behavior analysis.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 275–
285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1980.13-275

Hayes, S. C., & Strosahl, K. D. (1999). A practical
guide to Acceptance and Commitment Therapy.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Hollon, S. D., DeRubeis, R. J., & Evans, M. D.
(1987). Causal mediation of change in treatment
for depression: Discriminating between nonspeci-
ficity and noncausality. Psychological Bulletin,
102, 139–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.102.1.139

Holz, W. C., & Azrin, N. H. (1961). Discriminative
properties of punishment. Journal of the Experi-
mental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 225–232. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1961.4-225

Horowitz, F. (2002). Donald M. Baer Remembered.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 313–
314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2002.35-313

Hull, C. L. (1950). Simple qualitative discrimination
learning. Psychological Review, 57, 303–313.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0062099

Hull, C. L. (1952). A behavior system; an introduc-
tion to behavior theory concerning the individual
organism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Kanfer, F. H., & Phillips, J. S. (1970). Learning
foundations of behavior therapy. New York, NY:
Wiley.

Kazdin, A. E. (1978). History of behavior modifica-
tion: Experimental foundations of contemporary
research. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

Keller, F. S. (2009). At my own pace: The autobiog-
raphy of Fred S. Keller. Cornwall-on-Hudson,
NY: Sloan.

Keller, F. S., & Schoenfeld, W. N. (1950). Principles
of psychology. Acton, MA: Copley.

Kendler, H. H. (1967). Kenneth W. Spence, 1907–
1967. Psychological Review, 74, 335–341. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0024873

Kierkegaard, S. (1953). Fear and trembling and the
sickness unto death. New York, NY: Doubleday.

193IMPORTANCE OF HISTORY: PART 2

http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1987.48-441

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03392499

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40617-015-0057-0

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679%28200007%2956:7%3C907::AID-JCLP9%3E3.0.CO;2-I

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10615-016-0590-5

http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjp.105.438.61

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894%2870%2980053-3

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10546-003

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bar0000123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bin.1388

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0061712

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894%2804%2980013-3

http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1980.13-275

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.102.1.139

http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1961.4-225

http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2002.35-313

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0062099

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0024873

Krasner, L. (1988). Mary Cover Jones. The Behavior
Analyst, 11, 91.

Krasner, L. (2001). Cognitive behavior therapy: The
oxymoron of the century. In W. T. O’Donahue,
D. A. Henderson, S. C. Hayes, J. E. Fisher, & L. J.
Hayes (Eds.), A history of the behavioral thera-
pies: Founders’ personal histories (pp. 207–218).
Reno, NV: Context Press.

Kuhn, T. (1963). The structure of scientific revolu-
tions. London, England: University of Chicago
Press.

Layng, T. V. J. (2009). The search for an effective
clinical behavior analysis: The nonlinear thinking
of Israel Goldiamond. The Behavior Analyst, 32,
163–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03392181

Lazarus, A. A. (1958). New methods in psychother-
apy: A case study. South African Medical Journal,
32, 660– 663.

Lovaas, O. I., & Bucher, B. D. (Eds.). (1974). Per-
spectives in behavior modification with deviant
children. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lovaas, O. I., Koegel, R., Simmons, J. Q., & Long,
J. S. (1973). Some generalization and follow-up
measures on autistic children in behavior therapy.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 131–165.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1973.6-131

Macdonald, P. S. (2007). Francis Bacon’s behavioral
psychology. Journal of the History of the Behav-
ioral Sciences, 43, 285–303. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1002/jhbs.20240

Meichenbaum, D. (2017). The evolution of cognitive
behavior therapy: A personal and professional
journey. New York, NY: Routledge. http://dx.doi
.org/10.4324/9781315748931-2

Meichenbaum, D., & Novaco, R. (1985). Stress in-
oculation: A preventative approach. Issues in Men-
tal Health Nursing, 7, 419– 435. http://dx.doi.org/
10.3109/01612848509009464

Meichenbaum, D., Turk, D., & Burstein, S. (1975).
The nature of coping with stress. In I. G. Sarason
& C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Stress and anxiety
(Vol. 2. pp. 337–360). Washington, DC: Hemi-
sphere.

Morris, E. K., Altus, D. E., & Smith, N. G. (2013). A
study in the founding of applied behavior analysis
through its publications. The Behavior Analyst, 36,
73–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03392293

Poling, A., Picker, M., Grossett, D., Hall-Johnson, E.,
& Holbrook, M. (1981). The schism between ex-
perimental and applied behavior analysis: Is it real
and who cares? The Behavior Analyst, 4, 93–102.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03391858

Risley, T. R. (2001). Do good, take data. In W. T.
O’Donohue, D. A. Henderson, S. C. Hayes. J. E.
Fisher, & L. K. J. Hayes (Eds.) A history of the
behavioral therapies: Founders’ personal histo-
ries (pp. 267–287). Reno, NV: Context Press.

Risley, T., & Wolf, M. (1967). Establishing func-
tional speech in echolalic children. Behaviour Re-
search and Therapy, 5, 73– 88. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1016/0005-7967(67)90001-0

Rosner, R. I. (2012). Aaron T. Beck’s drawings and
the psychoanalytic origin story of cognitive ther-
apy. History of Psychology, 15, 1–18. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/a0023892

Rutherford, A. (2009). Beyond the box: B. F. Skin-
ner’s technology of behavior from laboratory to
life, 1950s–1970s. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Uni-
versity of Toronto Press.

Sartre, J. P. (1968). On genocide. Boston, MA: Bea-
con Press.

Segal, E. M., & Lachman, R. (1972). Complex be-
havior or higher mental process: Is there a para-
digm shift? American Psychologist, 27, 46–55.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0032254

Sidman, M. (1995). Foreword 1 K&S: Then and now.
In F. S. Keller & W. N. Schoenfeld (Eds.) Princi-
ples of psychology. Acton, Massachusetts: Copley.

Sidman, M. (2011). Can an understanding of basic
research facilitate the effectiveness of practitio-
ners? Reflections and personal perspectives. Jour-
nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 973–991.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-973

Skinner, B. F. (1945). The operational analysis of
psychological terms. Psychological Review, 52,
270–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0062535

Skinner, B. F. (1950). Are theories of learning nec-
essary? Psychological Review, 57, 193–216. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0054367

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior.
New York, NY: The Free Press.

Skinner, B. F. (1961). The flight from the laboratory.
In B. F. Skinner (Ed.), Century psychology series:
Cumulative record (pp. 242–257). East Norwalk,
CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Skinner, B. F. (1977). Why I am not a cognitive
psychologist. Behaviorism, 5, 1–10.

Skinner, B. F., & Lindsley, O. R. (1954). Status
reports II and III. Washington, DC: Office of
Naval Research.

Skinner, B. R., Solomon, H. C., & Lindsley, O. R.
(1953). Studies in behavior therapy (Status Report
I). Waltham, MA: Metropolitan State Hospital.

Smith, L. D. (1992). On prediction and control: B. F.
Skinner and the technological ideal of science.
American Psychologist, 47, 216–223. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0003-066X.47.2.216

Spence, K. W. (1936). The nature of discrimination
learning in animals. Psychological Review, 43,
427– 449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0056975

Spielmans, G. I., Pasek, L. F., & McFall, J. P. (2007).
What are the active ingredients in cognitive and
behavioral psychotherapy for anxious and de-
pressed children? A meta-analytic review. Clinical

194 GUERCIO

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03392181

http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1973.6-131

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jhbs.20240

http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315748931-2

http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/01612848509009464

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03392293

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03391858

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967%2867%2990001-0

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023892

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0032254

http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-973

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0062535

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0054367

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.47.2.216

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0056975

Psychology Review, 27, 642– 654. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2006.06.001

Staats, A. W. (1996). Aberrance in science: Should
behavior analysts know about psychological be-
haviorism? The Behavior Analyst, 19, 121–124.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03392752

Staddon, J. (2001). The new behaviorism: Mind,
mechanism, and society. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor
& Francis.

Suppes, P. (1975). Behaviorism and neobehaviorism.
Theory and Decision, 6, 269–285. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1007/BF00136198

Tolman, E. C. (1938). The determiners of behavior at
a choice point. Psychological Review, 45, 1– 41.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0062733

Tolman, E. C. (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and
men. Psychological Review, 55, 189–208. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0061626

Ullman, L. P., & Krasner, L. (1965). Case studies in
behavior modification. New York, NY: Holt, Rine-
hart, and Winston.

Watrin, J. P., & Darwich, R. (2012). On behaviorism
in the cognitive revolution: Myth and reactions.
Review of General Psychology, 16, 269–282.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026766

Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist
views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158–177.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0074428

Watson, J. B. (1920). Is thinking merely the action of
language mechanisms? British Journal of Psychol-
ogy, 11, 87–104.

Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned
emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psy-
chology, 3, 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
h0069608

Wolf, M. M. (2001). Application of operant condi-
tioning procedures to the behavior problems of an
autistic child: A 25 year follow-up and the devel-
opment of the teaching family model. In W. T. O.
Donahue, D. A. Henderson, S. C. Hayes, J. E.
Fisher, & L. J. Hayes (Eds.), A history of the
behavioral therapies: Founders’ personal histo-
ries (pp. 289–294). Reno, NV: Context Press.

Wolf, M. M., Risley, T. R., & Mees, H. (1963).
Applications of operant conditioning procedures to
the behavior problems of an autistic child. Behav-
iour Research and Therapy, 1, 305–312. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(63)90045-7

Wolpe, J. (1980). Behavior therapy for psychoso-
matic disorders. Psychosomatics, 21, 379–385.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0033-3182(80)73667-8

Received August 13, 2018
Revision received January 22, 2020

Accepted February 28, 2020 �

195IMPORTANCE OF HISTORY: PART 2

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2006.06.001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03392752

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00136198

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0062733

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0061626

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026766

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0074428

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0069608

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967%2863%2990045-7

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0033-3182%2880%2973667-8

The Importance of a Deeper Knowledge of the History and Theoretical Foundations of Behaviorism a …

Precursors to the Second Generation: Keller and Schoenfeld’s Principles of Psychology
The Evolution of Complex Learning Processes and Mediational Accounts Within the First Generation …
The Flight From the Laboratory
Extrapolations to Human Populations
Growing Pains and Shifts in Focus
The March Toward the Second Generation of Behavior Therapy in Behaviorism
Was There a Cognitive Revolution? The Second Generation Is Introduced
Bridging the Gap Between the First and Second Generations
Primary Figures in Second-Generation Conceptualizations
Aaron T. Beck and the Rise of CBT
The Rational Emotive Therapy of Albert Ellis
Albert Bandura and Modeling and Social Learning Theory
Stress Inoculation Training
Evaluation of Second-Generation Models
Some Closing Thoughts
References

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Behaviorism and Social Cognitive Theories ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Hire a Writer

Client Reviews

4.9

Sitejabber

4.6

Trustpilot

4.8

Our Guarantees

100% Confidentiality

Information about customers is confidential and never disclosed to third parties.

Original Writing

We complete all papers from scratch. You can get a plagiarism report.

Timely Delivery

No missed deadlines – 97% of assignments are completed in time.

Money Back

If you're confident that a writer didn't follow your order details, ask for a refund.

New to Your Trusted Assignment Help Service? Sign up & Save

Calculate the price of your order

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

You will get a personal manager and a discount.

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at

Total price:

$0.00

Power up Your Academic Success with the
Team of Professionals. We’ve Got Your Back.

Power up Your Study Success with Experts We’ve Got Your Back.

Order Now Order Now