Operant psychologists are looking for alternatives to radical behaviorism. Rachlin offers teleological behaviorism, but it may pose as many difficulties as radical behaviorism. There is, however, a less drastic way to defend Rachlin's thesis of It portrays operant principles as relating distal efficient causes to behavioral effects.

Neo-Skinnerianism differs from Radical Behaviorism in at least three important respects: (1) its willingness to entertain cognitive accounts of the processes underlying behavioral dispositions, (b) its reluctance to assert that the results of animal experiments can be used to predict and control human behavior, and (c) its ability to side step folk psychology's major criticism of operant theory. While eschewing Radical Behaviorism's ambition to transform psychology (and, indeed, human society itself), it nonetheless joins issue with a centuries-old debate over human (...) nature, and may eventually help to resolve it. (shrink)

Radical Behaviorism makes the implausible claim that “the appeal to mind explains nothing at all” (Skinner 1971, p. 186). Clearly, such a claim (if accepted) would lend strong support to the Skinnerian research program, if only because it would eliminate the major competition. But what support remains when such a claim is not accepted? This paper shall argue that the Skinnerian research program need not depend upon the supposition that there is something scientifically illicit or vacuous about the explanations offered (...) by mentalistic psychology. Distinguishing Radical Behaviorism from a position that grows out of Skinner’s writings from 1938 through 1950, it asserts that the latter position provides a conception of the behavior analytic program that is compatible with the basic claims of cognitive and folk psychology.We may give a rough definition of this position by following Cummins (1983) in distinguishing between two types of scientific theory. (shrink)