Posted: May 01, 2012 3:54 am
Asta666 wrote:Hello, I'm very interested in this topic. Anyone could recommend me some readings that focus on theoretical integration and not so much in differences?
Personally, I see the methodological approaches pretty similar (I think both are mechanistic), which is good. Neurological correlational evidence seems to help to avoid the ocean of mental concepts and hypothesis that behaviorists always condemned, but only to some extent.
Well behaviorists accept the fact that cognition and internal states influence behavior, so basically any book written by a behaviorist will include an integration of the two, just usually not explicitly stated. You might be interested in the works of Staddon though, for example:
Consciousness and Theoretical Behaviorism
The New Behaviorism: Mind, Mechanism and Society
Adaptive Dynamics: The Theoretical Analysis of Behavior
Ainslie and Rachlin's "molar behaviorism" also explicitly links to the two fields, so you might be interested in this book:
Breakdown of Will
Asta666 wrote:Also I think that claims like these:
"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).
are a few decades outdated, given the progress for instance in the development of psychotropic drugs. Anyway, I'm more interested in theoretical explanation so ideally both factors (internal states and environmental determinants) should be taken into account.
I think the use of psychotropic drugs to change behavior is covered by Dougher's quote there. The "environment" is anything which can be identified to affect the behavior of an organism, which includes internal components and physiological mechanisms. To simplify what Dougher is saying, his only point is: "To change behavior, we have to focus on variables which can be modified (as opposed to those that can't), and to be able to modify these variables we need to be able to clearly define what they are". Which, as far as I can see, must be absolutely true.