Simon Carsta, Bernardy João Lucas, Cowie Sarah
University of Agder, Postboks 422, 4604 Kristiansand, Norway.
University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Perspect Behav Sci. 2020 Nov 10;43(4):677-696. doi: 10.1007/s40614-020-00269-5. eCollection 2020 Dec.
The place of the concept of response strength in a natural science of behavior has been the subject of much debate. This article reconsiders the concept of response strength for reasons linked to the foundations of a natural science of behavior. The notion of response strength is implicit in many radical behaviorists' work. Palmer (2009) makes it explicit by applying the response strength concept to three levels: (1) overt behavior, (2) covert behavior, and (3) latent or potential behavior. We argue that the concept of response strength is superfluous in general, and an explication of the notion of giving causal status to nonobservable events like latent behavior or response strength is harmful to a scientific endeavor. Interpreting EEG recordings as indicators of changes in response strength runs the risk of reducing behavior to underlying mechanisms, regardless of whether such suggestions are accompanied by behavioral observations. Many radical behaviorists understand behavior as a discrete unit, inviting conceptual mistakes reflected in the notion of response strength. A molar view is suggested as an alternative that accounts for the temporally extended nature of behavior and avoids the perils of a response-strength based approach.
反应强度概念在行为自然科学中的地位一直是诸多争论的主题。本文基于与行为自然科学基础相关的原因，重新审视反应强度概念。反应强度这一概念在许多激进行为主义者的著作中是隐含的。帕尔默（2009）通过将反应强度概念应用于三个层面使其明确化：（1）公开行为，（2）隐蔽行为，以及（3）潜在行为。我们认为，反应强度概念总体上是多余的，并且赋予诸如潜在行为或反应强度等不可观察事件以因果地位的概念阐释对科学事业是有害的。将脑电图记录解释为反应强度变化的指标，无论此类观点是否伴有行为观察，都有将行为简化为潜在机制的风险。许多激进行为主义者将行为理解为一个离散单元，这引发了反映在反应强度概念中的概念性错误。建议采用一种整体观作为替代，它考虑到行为在时间上的延伸性质，并避免基于反应强度方法的风险。
