The history of behavior analysis is intellectually rich, scientifically consequential, and, at times, also deeply unsettling. Alongside foundational experiments, conceptual clarity, and meaningful societal contributions, the field’s past also includes ethical blind spots, exclusionary practices, and applications that produced harm such as the use of conversion therapy (see Morris et al., 2021). These are not the issues we tend to emphasize in teaching and training, yet, as teachers of behavior analysis, they warrant our attention because doing so enables us to better comprehend and convey the field to our students (Morris & Peterson, 2022).
In researching the history of behavior analysis to teach it, I have learned about amazing contributions from individuals from minoritized groups that are not usually included in textbooks or behavior-analytic literature (e.g., Kranak et al., 2023). For instance, the Hall of Fame committee of WIBA has conducted research, presented, and published the work of various women in the field who otherwise would remain unrecognized (LeBlanc et al., 2023).
At the same time, I have also been deeply disturbed to learn more about contributors to behavior analysis. Take for instance an article titled IQ by Richard Herrnstein in 1971 with controversial ideas how intelligence is lined to race and socio-economic status. Students and scholars such Dr. Alvin Poussaint criticized and protested these claims as unfounded and discriminatory (The Harvard Crimson, 1971). There was also a Public Statement on the Herrnstein Controversy, distributed at the Philadelphia American Association for the Advancement of Science Meeting of 1971. This is the same Herrnstein who formulated the matching law, widely known to behavior analysts (Herrnstein, 1961).
Years later, the publication of the The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (Murray & Herrnstein, 1994) also raised concerns. Among some of these concerns was that the authors equated IQ with intelligence, employed a culturally biased conception of success, used biased interpretations of data, and methodological flaws that contributed to perpetuating prejudices (e.g., Alderfer, 2003).
In a review of The Bell Curve, Karen B. Rogers (1996) elaborated on whether a balanced view was possible. In the first paragraph of the review Rogers stated: “It is hoped after Roeper Review readers have perused the multiple viewpoints on the book in these pages, they will actually go to the book and take a long read for themselves! We cannot afford, as a field, to base our opinions on hearsay and this book does bear some impact on our field!”.
These revelations engender questions about how I relate to the field. For example, can I handle that the notable contributors to the field concurrently contributed to perpetuating prejudices? Can I hold both truths simultaneously? Writing these questions (which I have posed to myself several times) took me back to the content of a book I read last year, Monsters A Fan’s Dilemma, by Claire Dederer (2023). In this book:
“Claire Dederer asks: Can we love the work of Hemingway, Polanski, Miles Davis, or Picasso? Should we love it? Does genius deserve special dispensation? Is male monstrosity the same as female monstrosity? Highly topical, morally wise, honest to the core, Monsters has incited a cultural conversation about whether and how we can separate artists from their art.” (Monsters, Para 2)
Image of a devil or monster as an illustration of the questions posed by Claire Dederer. Demon, Devil, Evil royalty-free vector graphic. Free for use under the Pixabay Content License.
Can we separate scientists from their science? Do we have to?
To process my engagement with the history of our field, I have conducted historical research of behavior analysis and have written two past blogs here that highlight the importance of teaching and learning our history (Instruments and their History to Teach Behavior Analysis, and Your Teachers and Mentors in Behavior Analysis).This blog is a continuation of my ongoing endeavor of learning, teaching, grappling, and researching the history of behavior analysis.
Here, I argue, as other colleagues in our field have, that engaging honestly with the history of behavior analysis—including what makes us cringe or what our students don’t want to hear —is essential for ethical practice, scientific progress, and the field’s future (see Morris, 2022). Specifically, in this blog I highlight and comment on practical guidelines crafted by behavior analysts, for integrating history into coursework.
Highlights and Comments on Teaching the History of Applied Behavior Analysis by Cody Morris and Stephanie M. Peterson (2022)
Recently, in preparation for a class, I found myself re-reading the article by Morris and Peterson (2022) which is part of a Special Issue of Perspectives on Behavior Science, dedicated to Teaching the History of Behavior Analysis. This course, History and Systems of Psychology, is one of a few in which I embed the history of behavior analysis. Below are a few observations and comments from my most recent reading:
When we teach about the history of behavior analysis, frequently we teach about the history of psychology (e.g., connections between APA ethical guidelines and the BACB ethics code). One implication stemming from this observation is the need to be critical and inclusive about the sources used to teach history of behavior analysis. We have to look beyond the behavior-analytic literature. To address this, Morris and Peterson (2022) collected a list of useful references on early ethical standards. Morris and Peterson also cited scholars within the history of psychology (not behavior analysts!) such as Alexandra Rutherford and Wade E. Pickren. I would like to add to the references provided by Morris and Peterson, two books by these authors, that I have found incredibly useful:
Pickren, W. E., & Rutherford, A. (2010). A History of Modern Psychology in Context. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Rutherford, A. (2009). Beyond the box: B. F. Skinner’s technology of behavior from laboratory to life, 1950s-1970s. University of Toronto Press.
A timeline may give the false impression that history is linear. The authors presented a timeline (see Figure 1, p. 764) of historical events that shaped current uses of punishment in behavior analysis. Such timeline is useful to show events more concretely, and how they were embedded in a cultural context. The authors “encourage readers to view the relations as nonlinear interactions” (p. 759). Such nonlinearity suggests that events that have caused harm may re-occur.
History is not about the past; it is about the present and future. I only wish that ethical blind spots, exclusionary practices, and applications that produce harm were issues of the past. Morris and Peterson (2022) noted under the Acknowledgments section a current controversy on the use of contingent electric skin shock (see p. 771). Another current issue under resurging practices that are not evidence-based pertains to facilitated communication. Teachers of behavior analysis have the responsibility to teach about these practices, their harm, and that despite lack of evidence to support them as effective treatments, they are still being used. Fortunately, scholars like Stuart Vyse (2024) have been writing about this in accessible outlets sucj as Skeptical Inquirer and presenting at professional conferences such as the annual ABAI convention.
Other exemplars of content besides punishment. Morris and Peterson (2022) presented and excellent exemplar of how to embed historical content in an introduction to ABA course when teaching about (positive) punishment (see pp. 758-770). In their conclusion section the authors offer other historical topics worth incorporating into an introductory course to behavior analysis. As a teacher of an introductory course in the experimental analysis of learning, I have reviewed the development of the Ethics Code in Animal Research following the exemplar presented by Morris and Peterson. Within this section of the course, I have discussed the controversial work of Herbert S. Terrace that entailed teaching American Sign Language to a chimpanzee named Nim Chimpsky; a jab to Noam Chomsky with who Terrace disagreed about language (Cantor, 2019). Based on research with Nim Chimpsky, Terrace (2019) published a book titled Why Chimpanzees Can’t learn Language and Only Humans Can. The controversy of this animal research was presented in a documentary titled Project Nim (2011), which I have shown in some of my courses. Can I handle that Terrace (1963) also contributed to foundational basic research on errorless learning to effective applications?
Concluding Thoughts
My evaluations of scientists and their work are inevitably shaped by my own history of reinforcement. Yet feelings of discomfort—even horror—must not prevent me from examining the functions of their contributions within the social, cultural, and political contexts in which they occurred. As an educator, my responsibility is to engage honestly with the full, complex history of our field, even when that engagement is difficult, and to present it to students and colleagues with accuracy, care, and respect.
Learning and teaching the history of behavior analysis is not an exercise in nostalgia or condemnation. It is not a simple endeavor of attributing a false dichotomy of good and evil. It is also not about any one’s personal judgement, although these happen and are inevitable; recognizing and elaborating on this is key. Nor is teaching history is about assigning blame; it is, however, concerned with cultivating critical and compassionate thinkers who understand how knowledge develops within social, cultural, and ethical contexts. The legacy of some of these controversial scholars is complex and complicated.
Learning and teaching the history of behavior analysis is a critical tool for understanding how, our concepts and ethical guidelines developed, how contextual variables shaped what was studied and valued, and how certain assumptions persisted unchallenged. Without this historical grounding, we risk perpetuating mistakes such as reproducing outdated practices, narrowing the scope of our science, and preparing professionals who can apply procedures without understanding the contingencies that shaped them (Michael, 2004; Sidman, 2011).
References
Alderfer, C. P. (2003). The science and nonscience of psychologists’ responses to The Bell Curve. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34(3), 287–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.34.3.287
Cantor, C. (2019, October 11). Project Nim Revisited. Columbia News. https://news.columbia.edu/news/chimpanzee-language-project-nim-herbert-terrace
Dederer, C. Monsters a fan’s dilemma. Alfred A. Knopf.
Herrnstein, R.J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of responses as a function of frequency of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 267–72. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1961.4-267
Herrnstein, R. (1971). IQ. The Atlantic. https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/files/sept_1971_-_herrnstein_-_i.q..pdf
Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. A. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. Free Press.
Michael, J. (2004). Historical antecedents of behavior analysis. In J. Michael (Ed.), Concepts and principles of behavior analysis (3rd ed., pp. 93-104). Association for Behavior Analysis International.
Morris, C., Goetz, D. B., & Gabriele-Black, K. (2021). The treatment of LGBTQ+ individuals in behavior-analytic publications: A historical review. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 14(4), 1179–1190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-020-00546-4
Morris, C., & Peterson, S. M. (2022). Teaching the history of applied behavior analysis. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 45(4), 757–774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-022-00354-x
Morris E. K. (2022). Teaching a course on the history of behavior analysis. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 45(4), 775–808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-022-00357-8
Pickren, W. E., & Rutherford, A. (2010). A history of modern psychology in context. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Rogers, K. B. (1996). What The Bell Curve says and doesn’t say: Is a balanced view possible? Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education, 18(4), 252–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199609553752
Rutherford, A. (2009). Beyond the box: B. F. Skinner’s technology of behavior from laboratory to life, 1950s-1970s. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Sidman, M. (2011). Can an understanding of basic research facilitate the effectiveness of practitioners?
Reflections and personal perspectives. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(4), 973–991.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-973
Terrace, H. S. (1963). Discrimination learning with and without “errors”. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1963.6-1
Terrace, H. S. (2019). Why chimpanzees can’t learn language and only humans can. Columbia University Press.
The Harvard Crimson (1971, December 16). Students, anthropologists protest ‘I.Q.’ theories. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1971/12/16/students-anthropologists-protest-iq-theories-pstudents/
Vyse, S. (2024). When silence speaks: The harmful pseudoscience of facilitated communication. Skeptical Inquirer, 48(6). https://skepticalinquirer.org/2024/10/when-silence-speaks-the-harmful-pseudoscience-of-facilitated-communication/