Palmer David C
Department of Psychology, Smith College, Northampton, MA 01963 USA.
Perspect Behav Sci. 2021 Jun 29;44(2-3):483-499. doi: 10.1007/s40614-021-00305-y. eCollection 2021 Sep.
Simon et al. (2020) argue that the concept of response strength is unnecessary and potentially harmful in that it misdirects behavior analysts away from more fruitful molar analyses. I defend the term as a useful summary of the effects of reinforcement and point particularly to its utility as an interpretive tool in making sense of complex human behavior under multiple control. Physiological data suggest that the concept is not an explanatory fiction, but strength cannot be simply equated with neural conductivity; interaction with competing behaviors must be considered as well. Decisions about appropriate scales of analysis require a clarification of terms. I suggest defining behavior solely in terms of its sensitivity to behavioral principles, irrespective of locus, magnitude, or observability. Furthermore, I suggest that the term be restricted to units that vary together in probability in part because of overlapping topography. In contrast, are united by common consequences; they vary together with respect to motivational variables but need not share formal properties and need not covary with acquisition and extinction contingencies.
西蒙等人（2020年）认为，反应强度的概念是不必要的，而且可能有害，因为它将行为分析师的注意力从更有成效的整体分析上引开。我捍卫这个术语，认为它是对强化效果的有用总结，尤其指出它作为一种解释工具在理解多重控制下的复杂人类行为方面的效用。生理数据表明，这个概念并非解释性虚构，但强度不能简单地等同于神经传导性；还必须考虑与竞争行为的相互作用。关于适当分析尺度的决策需要对术语进行澄清。我建议仅根据行为对行为原则的敏感性来定义行为，而不考虑其位置、大小或可观察性。此外，我建议该术语应限于因部分地形重叠而在概率上共同变化的单位。相比之下，[此处原文缺失相关内容]是由共同后果统一起来的；它们在动机变量方面共同变化，但不必具有形式属性，也不必与习得和消退偶然性共同变化。
