| Title |
Contingency Horizon: on Private Events and the Analysis of Behavior
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Perspectives on Behavior Science, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40614-014-0002-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sam Leigland |
| Abstract |
Skinner's radical behaviorism incorporates private events as biologically based phenomena that may play a functional role with respect to other (overt) behavioral phenomena. Skinner proposed four types of contingencies, here collectively termed the contingency horizon, which enable certain functional relations between private events and verbal behavior. The adequacy and necessity of this position has met renewed challenges from Rachlin's teleological behaviorism and Baum's molar behaviorism, both of which argue that all "mental" phenomena and terminology may be explained by overt behavior and environment-behavior contingencies extended in time. A number of lines of evidence are presented in making a case for the functional characteristics of private events, including published research from behavior analysis and general experimental psychology, as well as verbal behavior from a participant in the debate. An integrated perspective is offered that involves a multiscaled analysis of interacting public behaviors and private events. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 40% |
| Brazil | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 26% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Researcher | 4 | 10% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 7 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 27 | 69% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 8 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 January 2018.
All research outputs
#6,962,864
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Perspectives on Behavior Science
#155
of 552 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,039
of 238,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perspectives on Behavior Science
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 552 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 238,968 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.