Understanding Observational Learning. an Interbehavioral Approach

The Analysis of Verbal Behavior2011, 27, 191–203 Understanding Observational Learning: An Interbehavioral Approach Mitch J. Fryling, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology Cristin Johnston and Linda J. Hayes, University of Nevada, Reno Observational learning is an important area in the field of psychology and behavior science more generally. Given this, it is essential that behavior analysts articulate a sound theory of how behavior change occurs through observation. This paper begins with an overview of seminal research in the area of observational learning, followed by a consideration of common behavior analytic conceptualizations of these findings. The interbehavioral perspective is then outlined, shedding light on some difficulties with the existing behavior analytic approaches. The implications of embracing the interbehavioral perspective for understanding the most complex sorts of behavior, including those involved in observational learning are considered. Key words: observational learning, interbehaviorism, interbehavioral psychology, stimulus substitution, rule-governed behavior Research in observational learning represents a critical development in the history of psychology. Indeed, the research and scholarly work conducted by Bandura and colleagues set the occasion for the social cognitive perspective of learning (Bandura, 1986), which seemed to challenge the possibility that all behavior could be accounted for by respondent and operant processes alone. Toward this, the social cognitive perspective focused more explicitly on both modeling and cognition, and their role in understanding behavior. Meanwhile, behavior analysts have continued to contend that observational learning can be explained through processes of generalized imitation, conditioned reinforcement, and rule-governed behavior (e.g., Catania, 2007; Pear, 2001; Pierce & Cheney, 2008). However, these contentions become increasingly difficult when we take a closer look at the psychological event of interest in observational learning. Further, while behavior analysts have continued to conduct research in the area of observational learning, relatively little progress has been made toward developing a theoretical understanding of Cristin Johnston is affiliated with Spectrum Center, Oakland, CA. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mitch Fryling, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology; 617 W. 7th St., 8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017. (e-mail: [email protected]). this work. The primary aim of the current paper is to consider the general findings of the observational learning research within a thoroughly naturalistic, behavioral perspective. Of course, verbal processes play an important role in understanding observational learning, and thus, they are given both general and specific treatment throughout. In pursuing this work, J. R. Kantor’s philosophy of interbehaviorism and scientific system of interbehavioral psychology are reviewed. The potential benefits of embracing the interbehavioral perspective with respect to understanding observational learning and complex behavior more generally are considered. OBSERVATIONAL LEARNING In the 1960s and 70s Albert Bandura and his colleagues became well known for their social psychology research in the area of observational learning. Indeed, several of the early experiments in this area are very well known, and considered hallmarks in the field of psychology and behavior science (e.g., Bandura & McDonald, 1963; Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1963). These studies were pursued for a variety of reasons; partially to undermine the value of common psychoanalytic (Bandura & Huston, 1961; Bandura, Ross, et al., 1963) and developmental theories (Bandura & McDonald, 1963), and also to evaluate the role of observation as a primary 191 this theory is often considered to extend beyond behavioral theories. 1965. Early studies examined the role of modeling1 on the acquisition of aggression (Bandura. the researchers concluded that modeling was the significant factor involved in the acquisition of the moral judgment repertoire.g. 3 Of note. when something has been modeled the individual has observed a demonstration of the response and factors surrounding it. Experiments that added to our understanding of the role of consequences gener1 The term modeling is used synonymously with observation and demonstration in this context. For example. Groups one and two demonstrated more behavior change than group three at a 1–3 week post-treatment assessment. The Role of Modeling An early and longstanding aim of the observational learning literature is to understand the role of modeling in behavior change (e. other studies seemed to raise questions about the potentially detrimental effects of incentives on the acquisition of behavior. 2 determinant of behavior change. Importantly. an early study examined how the incidental behaviors of an experimenter might be acquired in the context of learning another task (Bandura & Huston). in the model/child groups trials alternated between the model and the child. and not simply of reinforcement. Ross. Bandura. less behavior change is observed when a child observes a model being punished (e. Generally.192 MITCH J.g. 1966) half of the participants were placed into an incentive condition where they were told that they See Greer et al. questioning the possibility that behaviorism alone could provide a comprehensive understanding of learning. for example. Bandura and McDonald (1963) compared the effects of three different variables on the acquisition of moral judgment responses. or a control condition (e. FRYLING et al. Bandura & McDonald. Bandura & McDonald.. 281). Ross. .2 Interestingly. 1963) and moral judgment (Bandura & McDonald. 1963. Grusec.. 1963. ally compared behavior change between children who either observed a model who was rewarded. 1961. Bandura. we will now provide a brief overview of some of the general findings of studies on observational learning. group two involved the model’s behavior being reinforced but not the child’s.3 Other experiments also found no difference between the reward and no consequence groups. that resulted in observational learning. 1965). In other words. The role of consequences. Ross. Thus. occurring in the context of other activities. 1963.g. & Ross.g. there is often no difference between conditions involving rewards and conditions involving no consequences at all. Bandura. Along similar lines. For example.. While this finding seems rather simple. where it was the observation of corrections. For example. 1963). while the model punished group continued to yield different results (e. it is possible that the modeling plus reinforcement condition would have been superior had more powerful reinforcers been used (Bandura & McDonald.g. it has significant implications for how we conceptualize learning. Specific emphasis was also placed on the role of consequences in the observational learning literature (e. Grusec.. & Ross. 2004 for a description of related studies on peer tutoring. Given the importance of this research. observing nonaggressive play or observing no consequences). 1966. and thus. & Ross. and that our primary aim is to describe some common themes within this literature. Bandura. the three variables involved three different groups of adult/child dyads: group one involved both the model and child’s target judgments be reinforced. the researchers acknowledged the possibility that their positive statements may not have been the most optimal reinforcers. & Menlove. and group three involved no model and only child reinforcement. 1963). Bandura. and provided a foundation upon which the social cognitive theory was built. at the beginning of one experiment (Bandura. & Menlove. In this study. this general finding may present specific conceptual challenges for behavioral theories of learning. a model who was punished. & Ross... p. Bandura. It is important to note that our review is admittedly less than comprehensive. As we will discuss in the coming paragraphs. The important conclusion of these studies is that behavior change can and does occur through observation. 1963). Importantly. 1961). Ross. Bandura & Huston. even when such observation is incidental. This seemed to support a growing distinction between different aspects of an individual’s repertoire and the various processes that contribute to their existence (see below). 501) repeatedly while watching the video. increasing attention was paid to the role of cognitive factors. and a third group observed without any instruction. Grusec. In this study three groups of children all viewed a video. The Role of Verbal Behavior As this line of researched progressed. and a 4. and also immediately rehearsed (i. aversive consequences seem to play a large part. this study highlights the early recognition of ‘‘cognitive’’ factors in observational learning. children in both conditions were asked to demonstrate what they observed on the movie. Of specific interest. Bandura. In an effort to elaborate upon this sort of research. 501). Generally. Importantly. 499). The ability to describe what was observed was viewed as a measure of learning. Given these important concerns.OBSERVATIONAL LEARNING would be given candy treats for correctly demonstrating what they learned after watching a movie. Put differently. 193 ing’’) on the acquisition of observed behavior.g. Ross. The researchers found that participants who ‘‘symbolically coded’’ (i. Interestingly. Generally. et al. and a 5’’ (p. Nevertheless. and a 3. For example. Given this. physically practicing (‘‘motor rehearsal’’) the observed behavior was found to be less important. leaving us more confident that if consequences have a role.. Cooper. developing a coded description of the models actions and practicing that description were both found to be important factors in the acquisition of observed behavior. the second group to ‘‘count 1 and a 2.. 505). often described with the terms coding and rehearsal. we can say that consequences seem to play some role in observational learning. developed number or letter coding systems) the model’s actions. one group was asked to ‘‘verbalize every action of the model as it is being performed’’ (p. after watching a film. 2007).. raising questions about the benefits of incentives on learning (see Bandura. while engaging in the observed behavior at a later time was viewed as performance. Neither coding without symbolic rehearsal or symbolic rehearsal without coding was found to be sufficient. Heron. The researchers found that those individuals who verbally described every action of the model were the most successful when tested for behavior change at a later time. coding can be thought of as describing what is observed in some way. Bandura and colleagues began to notice a difference between the observers imitative performance at a later time compared to their ability to describe what was observed when asked. which was assumed to necessarily involve some sort of cognitive activity. and operant conditioning are used rather loosely within this literature. & Ross (1963) found that children in both the . there are studies suggesting that there are no differences between observation with reinforcement and observation with no consequence at all. reinforcement. (1966) examined the effects of describing the activity of the model (‘‘cod4 The idea that rewards distract individuals from learning seems to be related to the concerns raised by Alfie Kohn (1999). & Menlove. however. p. the majority of stimulus changes called ‘‘rewards’’ or ‘‘reinforcers’’ in the observational learning literature do not technically meet the criteria to be classified as reinforcers. practiced) those codes had the best outcomes. these findings need to be interpreted with caution. For example. More specifically. a stimulus change can only be classified as a reinforcer if it increases the future frequency of the class of behavior it was made contingent upon (e. whereas rehearsal can be thought of as practicing what was observed.e. Bandura and Jeffrey (1973) examined the role of ‘‘coding and rehearsal’’ on the acquisition of observed behavior.4 At this point we must note that the terms reward. From a behavior analytic perspective..e. & Heward. Again. the researchers found that children in the incentive condition did slightly worse than those in the no incentive condition. Related to the role of verbal behavior. Learning and performance. or as being involved in the process of reinforcement or operant conditioning in general. this study was fueled by motivation to discredit behavior analysts who failed to account for ‘‘delayed reproduction of modeling behavior’’ (p. Bandura. which accounted for the development of the personality (Bandura & Walters. Greer. Fueled by findings that individuals might be able to describe observed behavior at a later time. SingerDudek. 2006). Attentional processes were described as cognitive abilities that ‘‘regulate sensory registration of modeled actions’’ and retention processes were those that took ‘‘transitory influences and converted to enduring internal guides for memory representation’’ (Bandura & Jeffery.e. 123). 1965.5 whereas consequences were more likely to influence the extent to which the individual’s behavior changed through observation (i. Singer-Dudek. Bandura and Jeffrey (1973) described four processes that account for learning from observation: attentional. According to the authors. Bandura and colleagues began to distinguish between learning and performance (also see Greer. Bandura (1965) found that differences between group measures on imitation of observed behavior were removed on an ‘‘acquisition index. & Ross. Bandura theorized that observational learning was an integral part of human development. as well as social and antisocial behaviors in children (Bandura.g. That is. Bandura and Jeffery (1973) say. Theoretical Developments Throughout the above studies Bandura and colleagues began to articulate a theoretical model of observational learning. 1963).. while another is through descriptions of the observed behavior. Specifically. 1973. motivational processes determine whether or not those behaviors emerge as overt action. theoretical accounts of observational learning highlight this distinction (e. Specifically. ‘‘Within this framework acquisition of modeled patterns is primarily controlled by attention and retention processes. Ross. The authors also concluded that participants who engage in transforming modeled actions into either descriptive words or visual images achieve higher levels of observational learning than those who did not. Bandura. ‘‘After modeled activities have been transformed into images and readily utilizable verbal symbols.. Bandura and Jeffrey (1973) conclude. but can also explain how this behavior can be reproduced later under many different circumstances. one way of measuring learning from observation is through imitation of the observed response at a later time. motor reproduction. Finally. These findings further highlighted the role of verbal behavior in the process of learning from observation. these memory codes can function as guides for subsequent reproduction’’ (p. 2006). 122). even if they did not actually engage in the behavior themselves during a testing condition (e. FRYLING et al.. & Gautreaux. Whereas performance of observationally learned responses is regulated by motor reproduction and incentive processes’’ (p. & Gautreaux. this model not only explains how a modeled response can be imitated immediately after it is observed. 5 In this literature the term learning is used to describe the individual’s ability to describe observed behavior at a later time. 1973). Bandura & Jeffrey. retention. that they actually engaged in the observed behavior). As these repertoires seemed to be influenced by different factors. 1973.194 MITCH J. . Bandura and colleagues began to distinguish between them more and more. this research shows that humans can learn without directly experiencing the aggressive-reward (participants observed a model be rewarded for engaging in a sequence of responses) and aggressive-punished (participants observed a model be punished for engaging in a sequence of responses) groups were able to describe the observed sequences of behavior. Indeed. Bandura and colleagues assumed that learning from observation occurred via an input-output.g. 1963). including the various ways in which such learning from observation might be measured. 122). As a result of these and other experiments. cognitive model. Similarly. Motor reproduction processes are those that move component actions stored in memory into overt action resembling that of the modeled behaviors. Bandura. despite differences in imitative behavior change. Importantly. Bandura and colleagues noted that verbal processes were more likely to influence learning.’’ where children were told they would get a reward for telling the experimenter what the model did. and motivational. p. Importantly. Bandura and colleagues raised several important issues regarding the role of observation and verbal behavior in behavior change processes. What can be said is that observational learning is an important area for behavior science to consider. 252). Peterson. the organism is said to learn to imitate observed behavior in the absence of any particular stimulus.OBSERVATIONAL LEARNING consequences of their own actions. albeit a less than thoroughly informed understanding of it. and their parent might say ‘‘yes. and as such cannot be found and thereby can never actually be studied (see Kantor. responses that have obviously never been reinforced. learning from observation was viewed to be a result of other processes. Bandura believed that reinforcement history alone was not sufficient.g. behavior analysts must account for the acquisition of novel behavior in the absence of contingent reinforcement for the individual engaging in those responses. These general findings seemed to devalue the comprehensiveness of the behavioral position. 499). Bandura’s theoretical constructs are not derived from events. and set the stage for the social cognitive perspective. 1966. In other words. if behavior analysts aim to develop a comprehensive account of learning it must include an adequate description of these instances.g. 1953). THE BEHAVIOR ANALYTIC POSITION The behavior analytic account of observational learning rests squarely upon the process of generalized imitation (Baer. the studies conducted by Bandura and colleagues seemed to question the role of rewards on the behavior of the observer. 1964. the organism is asked to engage in a response which has never been modeled before. In summary. that is. As mentioned earlier. dualistic worldview. & Sherman. novel responses occur in observational learning models. it is difficult to draw valid conclusions about the role of consequences from this line of research. and that the observation of a model was the most critical factor. p. This is a familiar process. Bandura found limitations with the operant interpretation of behavior.. Moreover. Bandura. In this sense. Thus. and such responding presents conceptual challenges to traditional behavioral concepts (e.. and thus. Bandura’s model relies upon the existence of hypothetical entities that do not exist in the spatiotemporal event matrix comprising the natural world. 2007). 1967. Furthermore.. Rather. then. & Menlove. Skinner. 2008. they are inferences derived from a thoroughly mentalistic. it is perhaps not surprising that Bandura’s work may be considered by some to be an extension or move beyond the behavioral position. 2008). that behavior analysts have proposed an alternative conceptualization of observational learning. the organism may be said to ‘‘emit’’ . p. the motivating operation) are considered. Pierce & Cheney. In particular. 1957. it is assumed that the social community shapes up delays in imitative responses. it is crucial that we reiterate the fact that Bandura and colleagues often misused the terms reinforcer and reinforcement. Added to this. of which ‘‘verbal coding’’ was one. Grusec. that’s what you heard on TV!’’. Baer & Sherman. and perhaps at a much later point in time.g. In the following section we provide an overview of the behavior analytic position on observational learning. ‘‘do this’’ while the model is touching their nose). The limitations of Bandura’s work not withstanding. a child might watch their favorite TV show. delayed responding is common. when imitation has ‘‘generalized’’ to new behaviors. and at a much later time repeat a phrase from the show.. Smith. It isn’t surprising. and thus. For example. In other words. even when more contemporary concepts (e. where the organism is asked to imitate several responses of the model (e.g. Observational learning seems to defy traditional discriminative stimulus—response— reinforcer analyses. it is said that ‘‘all instances of modeling and imitation involve the absence of the Sd’’ (Pierce & Cheney. and also articulate the role of verbal behavior in observational learning. perhaps while sitting in the car. Behavior analysts have long held that embracing such constructs can only distract workers from a scientific analysis (e. However. Specifically. Generalized imitation is said to occur when the organism engages in a response that has never been modeled or reinforced in the past. and after multiple exemplars have been successfully trained. 195 Still. . and when combined with a history of tact repertoires being reinforced. Given the importance of these issues. 1975. Both of these possibilities are consistent with the behavior analytic position.. which typically fall under the purview of generalized imitation. 1957) relationships in their environment. It must be noted that many of these issues are at the center of current controversy. Behavior analysts have also provided an account of the verbal coding that is said to participate in observational learning. and stimuli have been conditioned as reinforcers through the observation of others interacting with them. Greer & Ross. it is suggested that a large amount of rule-following behavior is reinforced throughout the organisms lifetime. Lowenkron. and engaged in rule-following behavior when she interacted with the card at a later time. and development in the field of behavior analysis. a recent series of studies conducted by Greer and colleagues seems to support the notion that observational learning may occur without rule-following. 1997). depending on ones theoretical preference. debate. Related to the latter. 1996). a child might observe a teacher praising another child for accurately matching a Spanish flashcard to the corresponding English flashcard (‘‘Good job matching perro with dog!’’). 2008. Importantly. 2008. Greer & Speckman. Two days later. Indeed. Greer & Speckman. Nevertheless. behaviors that closely resemble the observed behavior of models are presumed to have a history of reinforcement.. this is a good sign. 1982). and verbal behavior development (e.e. Zettle. 2009). & Bickel. It is our perspective that the interbehavioral position may be a rather useful foundation for workers as we continue on this journey (see Morris. Hayes. & Roche. and that these descriptions exert tremendous control over behavior. 1998) naming (Horne & Lowe.196 MITCH J. It is assumed that society teaches the organism to tact (Skinner. 2001). individuals both derive self-rules (i. For example. In this sense.g. 1989). . Generally speaking. From the behavior analytic perspective it may be assumed that the child already has a generalized imitative repertoire. and also for the role of verbal behavior in behaviors. 1989. behaving in a manner which is similar to the model may become conditioned reinforcer itself. and correctly place it on the corresponding English flashcard. BarnesHolmes. both of which do not require analyses of rule-governed behavior (see Greer & Ross. behavior analysts propose that individuals derive self-rules when they observe their environment (e. relational frame theory (Hayes. We primarily mention this to acknowledge the current fact that there is not a behavior analytic position on many of these issues. conditioned reinforcement. and thus. Hayes. so they are imitating the child they observed at a later point in time (see conditioned reinforcement hypotheses above). the child may or may not have tacted the observed relationship when it occurred (rule-stating). 2001. conditioned reinforcement hypotheses are also central to the behavior analytic conceptualization of observational learning and imitation in general. Barnes-Holmes. and a range of verbal processes. the child who observed the incident may be asked to ‘‘match same’’ when given that same Spanish flashcard. individuals have acquired the ability to learn new words through experiences that do not involve observing consequences of another. missteps that could have more or less dangerous implications for behavior analysis as an enterprise. Higgins. RosalesRuiz & Baer. For example. Poppen. This sort of conceptualization seems to be particularly helpful toward the behavior analytic understanding of delayed imitation (see Gladstone & Cooley. 2009) all seem to account for the type of phenomena we have commented on herein. the behavior analytic conceptualization of observational learning relies on generalized imitation.g. missteps may occur while we are on our journey to account for such phenomena. These processes seem to account for the fact that imitative responses which have never been reinforced occur at a later time.. Furthermore. For example. the perspectives of joint control (e. tact if-then relations in their environment) and subsequently engage in a great deal of rule-following with respect to those rules.g. FRYLING et al. Importantly. & Rosenfarb. & Roche. For example. the behavior analytic position does not require the individual to engage in rulestating and following for observational learning to occur. sf is the stimulus function. sf. Kantor. To be clear. psychological event. This is how you might see Peter when you enter a coffee shop you frequented with him. given an organisms history of interacting with spatiotemporal relationships (A-coffee shopr R B-Peter). dependent. Stimulus Substitution Stimulus substitution is the outcome of a history of an organism interacting with various association conditions (Kantor. The process by which this happens is central to understanding complex behavior. In other words. and an organism interacted with that relationship. as it is relatively less familiar to most behavior analysts. rf. settings and stimuli. and not within the organism. such that B becomes A (B[A]) and A becomes B(A[B]). 1986. the stimulating action of stimulus objects is differentiated from the formal properties of those objects in Kantor’s system. 1924.. 1924). settings and reactions. 1983a. Further. Before doing so. k is the unique organization of all factors. In the following sections we take a closer look at the behavior analytic position through the lens of interbehavioral psychology. 1983a. Specifically. 68). rf is the response function. 2006). 321–322). Kantor suggested that association conditions are fundamental psychological processes (1921. settings and settings. integrated whole (see Smith. such that accounting for seeing something in the absence of the thing seen (as when looking at a picture ‘‘reminds you’’ of the time or place it was taken) is not difficult (see Parrott. That is. 1983b. including those that typically fall within the purview of observational learning. Of particular relevance to our discussion of observational learning and complex behavior in general is the explicit distinction between stimulus objects and stimulus functions made within Kantor’s system (e. 1958. When one factor is changed the entire field is altered. THE INTERBEHAVIORIAL POSITION From the perspective of interbehavioral psychology the event of interest is always a thoroughly naturalistic. hi is the interbehavioral history. 47–48. that is. rather. For example. these factors are associated in the environment. This field is conceptualized by the following formula: PE 5 C (k. and md is the medium of contact. Association conditions may involve stimuli and responses. md). Kantor. where PE is the psychological event. Parrott. psychologically speaking (see . 1986). or having causal status. In this example. Skinner. 1958). the environment is where all associating takes place. one interbehavioral field. to relationships among various factors that occur in the environment together in space and time. all of the factors are equal participants in the one. but at the same time highlights the need for further system building in this area. 1983a. has perhaps contributed to the failure to 197 distinguish between object and functional properties in the domain of psychology (Kantor. stimuli and stimuli.g. The term association is used here to refer to spatiotemporal relationships. Kantor has suggested that the borrowing of the terms stimulus and response from biology. Parrott. it is not the organism who is associating. interrelated field. and reactions and reactions (including implicit and nonimplicit variations thereof. pp. st is setting factors. 1958. 1983b. Importantly. we briefly introduce the reader to the interbehavioral position. in Kantor’s system a picture as a stimulus object would be explicitly distinguished from its psychological functions. st. this interaction always participates in a multifactored. and we will now describe this process in more detail. even when those other objects are no longer physically present. Rather. even when he isn’t physically there. stimulus objects may have the stimulational properties of other objects. Moreover. 1974). The fact that there are a number of different perspectives on many of these issues may be considered a sign of progress and growth within behavior analysis. hi. 1924. This is to say none of the above factors are viewed as independent. this is one event. p. 1986).OBSERVATIONAL LEARNING observational learning. where stimulus and response functions are at least relatively more determined by their structural properties. 1924. this event is always the stimulus function (sf ) r Rresponse function (rf) interaction (Kantor. C is the interrelationship of all of the participating factors. stimulus A (coffee shop) and B (Peter) occurred together in space and time. pp. 1983b. stimuli that share physical features of those that participated in spatiotemporal association conditions may also develop substitute stimulus functions.e. Thus far we have briefly introduced some important features of interbehavioral psychology. Added to this. one might imagine how all stimuli could develop substitute stimulus functions of all other stimuli. recall that the stimulus functionr Rresponse function interaction is always a participant in an exceptionally unique. it is possible for all stimuli to develop substitute stimulus functions of any other stimulus.g.. such that everything might become one. That is to say. complex. substitute stimulus functions also generalize to stimuli which have never actually participated in spatiotemporal association conditions. Indeed. 1992a). & Roche. Indeed. and thereby involve similar stimulus functions. some have criticized interbehaviorism for its ‘‘loose form of associationism’’ (e. FRYLING et al. However. This type of process may become particularly subtle. individuals observe (i. In other words. in each and every specific psychological event. whereas that same glass of sangria might substitute for the music of a live band in a different multifactored field (you might hear the music that was playing at a restaurant where you drank sangria in the past). Barnes-Holmes.. which we find to be particularly relevant to our understanding of observational learning. 2001. from our perspective verbal behavior. one outcome of interacting with an observed relationship is being able to describe it. 38). This process is of particular importance to understanding complex behavior of various sorts. and is likely to be involved in a range of complex behaviors. while there may be a wide range of potential substitute stimulus functions for every stimulus object. 1992a. a coffee shop that is physically similar to the coffee shop you went to with your friend Peter might also substitute for Peter.198 MITCH J. interact with) spatiotemporal association conditions in the environment (e. As this example demonstrates. The role of verbal behavior must also be considered in the context of our analysis thus far. p. you might see Peter in the presence of a coffee shop that is physically similar to the shop you frequented with him. Furthermore. multifactored field. such that at a later time the stimulus objects involved might substitute for the prior observation (e. From the interbehavioral perspective. avoiding both mentalistic and reductionistic practices which place the past within the organism in one way or another (see Hayes. the scrap paper develops the stimulational properties of the observed relations. 1992b). specifically with respect to association conditions and the development of substitute stimulus functions. does not Hayes.. Generally speaking. and thus. psychologically speaking. p. descriptions are a particularly strong indication that the relations assumed to be observed have indeed actually been contacted.g. That is. Psychologically speaking. it substitutes for them. a glass of sangria might substitute for a particular friend in a specific multifactored field (you might see your friend and remember drinking sangria together). At this point it is important to address one potential misunderstanding with the interbehavioral perspective. is always absolutely specific. a child putting scrap paper in the recycling bin and this being followed by praise). What the reacting organism and the stimulus object do in each interaction constitutes a distinctly unique relational happening’’ (1977. including imagining and dreaming. including rules more generally.6 We are suggesting that all stimuli which occur together in space and time. and which the organism interacts with. For example.. Kantor stated ‘‘Each interaction For example. However. as an individual’s interbehavioral history becomes more and more elaborate. the scrap paper might have the stimulus functions of praise in the previous observation). but which are physically similar to stimuli which have. 6 . through processes of generalization. specific substitute stimulus functions are always actualized (or not) in a unique interbehavioral field. Specifically. In other words. Hayes. given the appropriate interbehavioral history. while a specific stimulus object may indeed substitute for a wide range of things given an appropriate interbehavioral history. this is how interbehaviorists are able to conceptualize the past and present as one. may develop substitute stimulus functions of one another. For example.g. particular substitute stimulus functions are actualized. the scrap paper is those relations (see Hayes. Thus. 1992b). 8). describing an observed relationship requires the organism to interact with it. Again.g.g. it is not clear what the stimulus is. Reiss. That is.... Carr. 2008). it is important that verbal behavior not be given any causal or special sort of status. Miguel. as it assures the organism has interacted with the observed relation. from the interbehavioral perspective the psychological event is always the stimulus functionr Rresponse function interaction. Moreover. whether or not the organism describes the observed relationship does not explain behavior change at a later time.. both of these analyses require further consideration of the stimulus involved. Again. when he/ she follows such a rule. Biederman. it unclear what the organism is interacting with when he/she derives a self-rule. In other words. joint control (e. The generalized imitation analysis leaves us questioning the nature of the stimulus interacted with.7 7 A number of socially significant behaviors involve language. That is. verbal behavior need not be considered ‘‘meditational. 199 We hope we have made it clear that observational learning isn’t puzzling from an interbehavioral perspective. given our assumptions about the psychological event. 1972). participate in learning from observation. seems to be worth considering. Again. and parsimonious way to conceptualize complex processes. p. this account is problematic. & Michael. in this sense verbal behavior does not ‘‘mediate’’ responding. In the following section we outline and address these issues specifically. behavior analytic conceptualizations also fail to explicitly articulate the location of the stimulus. and accounts for observational learning that occurs with and without verbal behavior. Added to the concerns described above. In other words. & Vanayan. Given our assumption that psychological events always involve sfr Rrf interactions. Review of the Behavior Analytic Perspective As described earlier.g. but caution against giving it any sort of special status. the behavior analytic conceptualization of observational learning rests on the processes of generalized imitation. including those involved in observational learning. categorization). however. and similarly. and verbal processes more generally. and generalized imitation (e. Horne & Erjavec. we are arguing that language not be given special status in the conceptualization of observational learning. 1970.’’ Our perspective on this matter seems to be both parsimonious and comprehensive. as is the case in animal research within this area (e. Observational learning certainly can.g. it is likely to be correlated with it. Our contention that verbal behavior not be given any causal status within the conceptualization of observational learning may seem to be at odds with a number of popular perspectives in behavior analysis. they may further enhance any learning by observation.g. to the extent that rule-statements substitute for a history of reinforcement. not surprisingly. and we are not questioning the interest in it for the purposes of understanding how to promote such behaviors (e. as participants in multifactored fields. Petursdottir. Stimulus substitution offers a straight forward. the interbehavioral perspective also avoids some shortcomings found with the behavior analytic interpretation of observational learning. it is unclear where the stimulus interacted with is located. Importantly. naturalistic. 2007) seems to support the idea that verbal behavior is mediational. For example. Robertson. and does occur in the absence of verbal behavior. Importantly. 252). 1998). but importantly also may not. as stated above. From our perspective these analyses fail to fully articulate the nature of stimulation in the psychological event. verbal behavior may. In this sense. In doing so. However. Its participation in the process of observational learning. Failing to fully describe the nature and location of the stimulus leaves the door open . This problem is further underscored by the suggestion that generalized imitation involves responding in the absence of a discriminative stimulus (Pierce & Cheney. rule-governed behavior. however. we do not deny that verbal behavior is likely to be helpful in a number of circumstances. Lowenkron. That is. a growing body of research on naming (e. This is to say. Again.OBSERVATIONAL LEARNING explain observational learning. The process of deriving and following self-rules leaves us in a similar situation. 2008.. it does not employ any unnecessary assumptions or constructs. Meyers. we are left questioning the nature of the stimulus interacted with. 1986. conditioned reinforcement. 2004. 2009. Rehfeldt. What is needed is a thoroughly naturalistic conceptualization of observational learning. Added to this. 2009. namely biology. both operant and respondent processes can be conceptualized within the more global processes of association and subsequent outcomes of stimulus substitution. one that avoids all mentalism (i.g. Singer-Dudek. there are some interesting reasons to believe that this process has important clinical value when compared to other procedures (see Hayes. & Melancohn. Bruzek & Thompson. In other words. the constructs we employ to understand various interrelations among factors participating in psychological events should never be confused to be representations of the subject matter as a whole. 2009). a clear. as being explanatory of one another. Confusions between what is measured and what ones says they measuring are common in science (see Kantor. alternatively. It is our perspective that the position described in this paper may be integrated with contemporary research and scholarship in behavior analysis..8 In each of these cases. we either avoid attempting to specify the stimulus. Kohlenberg. we fail to provide a thoroughly psychological account of the event we are interested in. 1957. it is important to note that even when biological factors are observed (and indeed. & Zrino. 2007.e. That is to say. Alternatively. While it may be argued that much of the contemporary work in the area of complex behavior does in fact avoid many of the concerns we have described. 8 Here. Smith. they increasingly are) they are never observed to be engaging in the psychological event of interest. remaining comprehensive all the while. and a possible resurfacing of mentalistic thinking. covert. and are especially likely when there is a failure to fully articulate the boundary conditions between individual scientific disciplines. . it is one that does not require any additional constructs to explain complex processes. Contemporary research in behavior analysis requires us to emphasize specific aspects to the interbehavioral position. Greer & Singer-Dudek. 1947). we can never observe the brain or any biological component of the organism engaging in the behavior we are most interested in (see Kantor. the research on relational responding is particularly stimulating. leaving our job unfinished. FRYLING et al. Ramirez & Rehfeldt. In this line of research a multitude of historical association conditions are manipulated in unique ways. In the case of generalized imitation we find ourselves saying that the response is ‘‘in the repertoire’’ of the organism. Kantor. their explanations remain wholly consistent and for common mentalistic explanations to thrive. where our work is left unfinished. This is especially so when we make clear distinctions between investigative constructs and events. particularly with respect to the role of the context (unique multifactored fields). or biological in nature (also see Hayes & Fryling. and thoroughly naturalistic conceptualization of observational learning. When these interesting outcomes are conceptualized as unique sorts of substitute stimulation. Greer. suggest that it is available only to those involved in other scientific disciplines. multifactored fields. operating in historical. Smith. 2003). 2007). & Stromer. a failure to be explicit about these important issues can only result in long-term confusion. As we have described. Alvero & Austin. but that these constructs should not be confused with the constructions of the subject matter and philosophy more generally. Kantor (1958) has suggested that investigative constructs are acceptable within the context of the investigative subsystem of science. Longano. Moreover. no intermediate steps within the organism). because the stimulus is private. both dualistic and reductionistic workers are quick to complete the job. as is advocated by interbehaviorists (see Fryling & Hayes. 2007). the interbehavioral perspective offers us just that. and the actualization of specific substitute stimulus functions. For example. 1989). Moore & Fisher. That is. 2008. place it within the organism. or as having more or less causal status. CONCLUSION The behavior analytic community continues to be interested in the important processes involved in observational learning (e. As has been the case throughout history.200 MITCH J. 2008. the organism may be said to ‘‘derive’’ or ‘‘relate’’ with respect to participating verbal processes.. and the development or ‘‘emergence’’ of a wide range of events is then tested. 2007. or. In this regard. Latimore. 1957. under various contextual conditions. consistent. such integration might serve to coordinate the efforts of various workers in the field. Bandura. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. & Menlove. Influence of social reinforcement and the behavior of models in shaping children’s judgment. M... F. 601–607. T. Kantor’s conceptualization of the psychological event. with all of its fullness. The limitations of Bandura’s work not withstanding. NJ: Pearson. & Ross. our most basic concepts and principles must be relevant to. Hayes. A. R. Robertson. The effects of conducting behavioral observations on the behavior of the observer. F. & Jeffrey. 40. J. Baer. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. H. and provide an account of observational learning. (1965). Role of symbolic coding and rehearsal processes in observational learning. 1. Observational learning as a function of symbolization and incentive set. see Clayton. 63. Englewood Cliffs. Bandura. Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed. F. & Thompson. A. A. A.. E. H. (1961). interim 4th edition.. including those involved in observational learning. Reinforcement control of generalized imitation in young children. 1. & Huston.. W. 46. Biederman. REFERENCES Alvero. The development of imitation by reinforcing similarity to a model. .. NJ: PrenticeHall. M. D.. Child Development. A. A. A. 589–595. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 63.. 37. 45–49.. R. Bruzek. Importantly. Bandura. R. D. (1963). H. The nature and value of scientific system building: The case of interbehaviorism. & Ross. 1958). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Upper Saddle River. Bandura. 55. J. & Swain. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. O. Identification as a process of incidental learning. 67. England: Prentice-Hall. 37–49. Cornwall-on-Hudson. The Psychological Record. (1986). Cooper. 37. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. Ross.. C. (1963).. Antecedent effects of observing peer play. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston. & Austin. J. Catania. Heron. A.). Bandura. Clayton. if one values such comprehensiveness. The interbehavioral perspective is particularly valuable in this regard. Ross. J.. A. 335–359. Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Baer. (2007). A. (1973). 499–506. & Sherman. J. Learning. 405–416. A. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. J. 67. and ultimately maximize on our productivity as a scientific enterprise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 26. (1986). & McDonald. L. S.. D. 2005. (2007). W. (1963). A. Peterson. M.. & Swain. the process of learning from observation is interesting and relevant to a comprehensive analysis of behavior.. Bandura. Grusec. (1966).. Aggression: A social learning analysis. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. A. A. (2007). (1964). (1967).. (2004). A. M. E. A. Indeed. (1961). Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. B. 575–582. (2005). might be fully integrated into a natural science approach to the analysis of behavior. 274–281. M. Observational learning of Two visual discriminations by pigeons: A within-subjects design. 311–318. A. this comprehensiveness is only valuable when it is achieved within the context of validity (internal consistency) and significance (external consistency within the greater field of the sciences. L. M. G. Vicarious reinforcement and imitative learning. C. Kantor. Bandura. R. Oxford. L.OBSERVATIONAL LEARNING naturalistic. provides an avenue by which the most complex sorts of behavior. (1973). 122–130. 201 Bandura. D.. Influence of models’ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses.. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Social learning and personality development. 327–331. L. S. 10. & Vanayan. & Sherman. & Walters. NY: Sloan Publishing. J. Moreover. Hayes. C. Bandura.. & Heward. A. Bandura. We think most contemporary research and scholarship in behavior analysis can and should be integrated with the interbehavioral perspective. 457–468. A. J. .. S. R. W. J. R. & Speckman. Kantor. Miguel. P. Hayes. Greer... W. & Rosenfarb. Hayes. Chicago: The Principia Press.. 25(1). J. P. 225–235. (1975). A. Horne. & Hayes. & Melancon. Problems of physiological psychology. Psychological constructs and events: An alliance with Smith.). Key instructional components of effective peer tutoring for tutors. The role of naming in stimulus categorization by preschool Fryling. I. (1947). Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. Rulegoverned behavior: Cognition. contingencies. Behavior & Philosophy.. J. (1992b). and other bribes. J.. Meyers. Hayes. A’s. R. J. Hayes (Ed. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. M. Understanding verbal relations (pp. Rule following. Kantor. Singer-Dudek. New York: Plenum. (2004). E. Association as a fundamental process of objective psychology. M. Observational learning in monkeys. Some logical functions of joint control. The Psychological Record. Chicago: The Principia Press. Greer. Moran & R. J. NV: Context Press... Greer. Hayes. Principles of psychology (I). C. R. J. Longano. Zettle. J. C. 191–220). J. R. Hayes & L. In S. Observational learning. M. J. B. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 385–424. praise. The Psychological Record. 359– 385).. R. (1977). & Erjavec. Barnes-Holmes. (2009). (2007). The Psychological Record. 327–354. R. Constructs and events in psychology: Philosophy: Banished and recalled. & Roche. J. 357– 368. (2008). 59. C. and instructional control (pp. (1924). 5–26. B. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 295–334). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars. New York: Plenum. (2009).. S. 23. D. R. (1989).. The Behavior Analyst. New York: Elsevier/ Academic Press.. G. J. A. D. tutees. Relational Frame . 87. 97– 108). 69. J. International Journal of Psychology.). Revista Mexicana de Psicologia. 39–57. (2009). Rule-governed behavior: Cognition.. Kohn. The integration of speaker and listener responses: A theory of verbal development. Do infants show generalized imitation of gestures? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. Avoiding and altering rule-control as a strategy of clinical intervention.) (2001). 14. 449–488. R. Hayes (Eds. I. L. New York: Plenum. (1992a). M.. D. The Psychological Review. M. Malott (Eds. (1921). Hayes (Ed. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Verbal behavior analysis: Inducing and expanding complex communication in children with severe language delays. Hayes. Kantor. C. 59. Gautreaux. Kantor.. Meincke. & Yuan.. J. L. incentive plans. C. (1957). (2008).. Horne. A. J. Chicago: The Principia Press.. Interbehavioral psychology. 65. & Singer-Dudek. L. M. J. S. J. A. Theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. L.. & Fryling. Lowenkron. & Michael. B. Hayes. C.202 MITCH J. Petursdottir. J. 486–499.. Kantor. J. & Ross. Keohane. J. 41(6). In S. D. J. Evidence-based educational methods (pp. D. (Eds. (1989). and instructional control (pp. G. (1999). J. (1970). C. contingencies. Greer. Greer. Psychological linguistics. & Cooley. E. & Lowe. Equivalence as process. ChavezBrown. 15. In D. Gladstone. Chicago: The Principia Press.. & Gautreaux. 55–60. Behavioral similarity as a reinforcer for preschool children.. 89. F. W. Singer-Dudek. Kantor. K. B. (1998).. R. R.. Overcoming the pseudo-problem of privacy in the analysis of behavior. Greer. The psychological present. (1958). Reno. F. 37. S. J.. The emergence of conditioned reinforcement from observation. (2006).. 133–142. Carr. 15–29. R. J. D. In S. On the origins of naming and other symbolic behavior. Kohlenberg.). L. R. C. 139– 145. & Zrino.. FRYLING et al. S. D. The emergence of praise as conditioned reinforcement as a function of observation in preschool and school age children.). (2008). 185–241. (2008). and peer observers. Pereira. 7. J. D. 28(6). (1996). D. 63–87. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. D. J. J. 30. 158– 173. K. (1953). 35–60). Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. Hayes (Ed. J. (1982). T. Smith. W. Reese & L. 333– 358. Science and human behavior. Observational learning and the emergence of symmetry relations in teaching Spanish vocabulary words to typically developing children. D. P. (1957). & D. L. H. 169–186. 325–357). & Rehfeldt. 42. Reassessment in psychology: The interbehavioral alternative (pp. W. (1997). On the role of postulation in the analysis of inapparent events. Modern perspectives on J. R. 87– 110). Ramirez. R. F. Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis.. 181–186. D. 40. W. 18. R. & Bickel. In B. T. (2001). Skinner. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. (2009). 251–268).. J. Smith. MD: University Press of America.). J. The Psychological Record. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. Skinner. Vicarious conditioned acceleration: Successful observational learning of an aversive Pavolovian stimulus contingency. and empirical advances (pp. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. Parrott (Eds. Skinner. W. 57. N. W. & Baer. Behavior science: Philosophical.). Erlbaum Associates. C. (2008). 383–405. Morris (Eds. 9(2). N. K. Observational learning and the formation of classes of reading skills by individuals with autism and other developmental disabilities. contingencies. J. Pierce. W. Parrott. Reiss. Poppen. K. L. J. R. Higgins. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 533–544. Latimore. 197–202. Pear. (2007). M. Rehfeldt. PA: Psychology Press.. Ruben (Eds. Rosales-Ruiz. (2007). D. J. & Cheney. The influence of Kantor’s interbehavioral psychology on behavior analysis.. W. L. New York: Free Press. Kantor and interbehaviorism (pp. Rule-governed behavior: 203 Cognition. (1983b). New York: Knopf. 24. 89. (1983a). & Stromer. B. NV: Context Press. J. The effects of videotape modeling on staff Acquisition of functional analysis methodology. E. In S. D. D. Morris. F. A. New York: Psychology Press. B.OBSERVATIONAL LEARNING children. Midgley & E. The science of learning. Moore. The interbehavioral field.. Lanham. Behavioral cusps: A developmental and pragmatic concept for behavior analysis.. About behaviorism. Philadelphia. Systemic foundations for the concept of ‘‘private events. The Behavior Analyst. (1974). W.). Research in Developmental Disabilities. (1986). & Fisher. NJ: L. Mountjoy. Hillsdale. (2006). A. Events and constructs. W. In H. (2003). New York: Plenum. Behavior analysis and learning (4th ed. R. Reno. 5. S. Smith.. . D. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. F. and instructional control (pp. (1972). methodological.). C. B. Parrott.. 801–805. L. 95–115. Verbal behavior. Similarities and differences between Skinner’s radical behaviorism and Kantor’s interbehaviorism. Some clinical implications of rule-governed behavior.’’ In N. Parrott.). (1989).