Posted: Feb 03, 2012 10:16 am
according to Hayes & Brownstein (1986) all kinds of mentalistic explanations will disrupt the focus of experimental control.
--
i´d like to recommend Michael J. Doughers article "A bigger picture" (1995), where he discusses the cognitive accounts of self-efficacy (Bandura) and the disagreement from behavior analyst (among others A. C. Catania).
"...a far more fundamental disagreement than whether behavior analytic or cognitive accounts of self-efficacy are more convincing. The deeper disagreement represents what may be the closest thing to a true paradigm clash that psychology has to offer. The fundamental differences certainly have ontological implications, but the real disagreement is at the epistemological level, beginning with questions pertaining to the nature of science, causality, explanation, and theory, and extending to the proper subject matter of psychology, units of analysis, and how data should be collected and interpreted" (Dougher, 1995, p. 215).
"Of particular importance is the difference in their scientific objectives. Mechanistic frameworks have as their objective correspondence. That is, an explanation is true to the extent that it corresponds with observed events. Prediction is the most stringent form of correspondence, and has been adopted as the truth criterion for mechanistic explanations (Hayes & Brownstein,1986)" (Dougher, 1995, p. 216).
"Behavioral control in principle can only be obtained when the manipulable determinants of behavior are identified. Thus, while explanations of behavior that appeal to internal mechanisms or processes may very well predict behavior, they are considered inadequate with respect to the goal of control or effective action unless the environmental determinants of the internal mechanisms or processes are clearly stipulated" (Dougher, 1995, p. 216).
Dougher, M. (1995) A bigger picture: cause and cognition in relation to differing scientific frameworks Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry 26 (3) 215 – 219.
--
i´d like to recommend Michael J. Doughers article "A bigger picture" (1995), where he discusses the cognitive accounts of self-efficacy (Bandura) and the disagreement from behavior analyst (among others A. C. Catania).
"...a far more fundamental disagreement than whether behavior analytic or cognitive accounts of self-efficacy are more convincing. The deeper disagreement represents what may be the closest thing to a true paradigm clash that psychology has to offer. The fundamental differences certainly have ontological implications, but the real disagreement is at the epistemological level, beginning with questions pertaining to the nature of science, causality, explanation, and theory, and extending to the proper subject matter of psychology, units of analysis, and how data should be collected and interpreted" (Dougher, 1995, p. 215).
"Of particular importance is the difference in their scientific objectives. Mechanistic frameworks have as their objective correspondence. That is, an explanation is true to the extent that it corresponds with observed events. Prediction is the most stringent form of correspondence, and has been adopted as the truth criterion for mechanistic explanations (Hayes & Brownstein,1986)" (Dougher, 1995, p. 216).
"Behavioral control in principle can only be obtained when the manipulable determinants of behavior are identified. Thus, while explanations of behavior that appeal to internal mechanisms or processes may very well predict behavior, they are considered inadequate with respect to the goal of control or effective action unless the environmental determinants of the internal mechanisms or processes are clearly stipulated" (Dougher, 1995, p. 216).
Dougher, M. (1995) A bigger picture: cause and cognition in relation to differing scientific frameworks Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry 26 (3) 215 – 219.