On the Function of Science: an Overview of 30 Years of Publications on Metacontingency

Abstract

How effective has the concept of metacontingency been in providing explanations about cultural practices during the 30 years (1986–2016) since Glenn’s first publication on the subject? One of the main characteristics of behavior analysis epistemology is in the role attributed to science itself: to promote effective action. Effectiveness, in this case, is evaluated by the increase in probability of contacting reinforcing consequences in our interactions with the world (bio-, psycho- or social-) as a function of the knowledge produced by scientific practices. In other words, scientific effectiveness is related to the use of science in solving human problems. Guided by this premise, the aim of this article is to discuss the effectiveness of the metacontingency in explaining social processes (cultural practices) and in promoting effective action (i.e., solving human problems). An analysis of 148 articles on the metacontingency published between January 1986 and April 2017 in 16 peer-reviewed journals and 3 databases was conducted. Articles were categorized into four domains - theoretical, interpretative, experimental, and applied. The frequency with which the articles were distributed among domains, journals, and research centers is presented; as well as considerations regarding conceptual, experimental, and applied issues found in the reviewed literature. The results suggest that the very definition of the metacontingency is still an open question, that the experimental data do not necessarily support the major conceptual claim related to the metacontingency (i.e., that we are dealing with a new selective process that requires a proper unit of analysis), and that no applied work in which the metacontingency was necessary has been conducted to date. These results question the utility of metacontingency as well as the necessity of a new unit of analysis (beyond the contingency) to study cultural practices.