The molar view of behavior and its usefulness in behavior analysis.

Abstract

molar view of behavior contrasts with the older, molecular view. difference is paradigmatic, not theoretical. No experiment can decide between them, because they interpret all the same phenomena, but in different terms. molecular view relies on the concepts of discrete, momentary events and contiguity between them, whereas the molar view relies on the concepts of temporally extended patterns of activity and correlations. When dealing with phenomena such as avoidance, rule-governed behavior, and choice, the molar view has the advantage that it requires no appeal to hypothetical constructs. molecular view always appeals to hypothetical constructs to provide immediate reinforcers and stimuli when none are apparent. As a result, the explanations offered by the molar view are straightforward and concrete, whereas those offered by the molecular view are awkward and implausible. usefulness of the molar view for applied behavior ties in the flexibility and conceptual power it provides for talking about behavior and contingencies over time. ********** molar view of behavior is relatively new. Although its origins may be traced back earlier, its first partial articulation was by Baum and Rachlin (1969), in a paper called Choice as time allocation. It was presented more fully in a paper by Baum (1973), The correlation-based law of effect. Rachlin (1994) offered a book-length presentation, and Baum (2002) elaborated on his 1973 paper in another paper, From molecular to molar: A paradigm shift in behavior analysis and some papers in-between (Baum, 1995a; 1997). molar view contrasts with an older view that behavior inherited from nineteenth-century psychology. I call this older view molecular, because it is based on the notion explanations of behavior may be constructed by thinking of small discrete units being joined together into larger units, like the joining together of atoms into molecules in chemistry. difference between the molecular and molar views of behavior is paradigmatic, not theoretical. No data, no experiment can decide between the two views, because no matter what behavioral phenomenon one chooses, a proponent of either view is able to construct an account of it. difference between the two lies in the concepts each brings to bear in such an account. molecular view relies on momentary events and momentary causation, which leads to postulating hypothetical momentary events and causes when none are apparent, whereas the molar view relies on extended activities and extended causation, avoiding postulation of hypothetical constructs. Replacing the concept of momentary response with the concept of extended activity requires one to become familiar with thinking in more continuous terms-that is, in terms of extended patterns that cannot be seen at a moment in time. A familiar example is the concept of probability. An unbiased coin, when flipped, comes up heads with a probability of .50. What does this mean? On any particular flip, the coin comes up heads or tails; nothing more can be observed. Only for a long series of flips can one observe the probability of .50. If one says that on a particular flip the probability is .50, all one means is that in a long series of such flips about half would show heads. same is true of response rate. At any particular moment, an activity (lever pressing) is occurring or not. One can only observe the response rate over some substantial time period. A response that occurs 60 times per minute cannot occur 60 times per minute at a moment. Although Skinner advocated the use of response rate as a dependent variable, he was a molecularist. In his well-known paper on superstition, Skinner (1948) proposed a snapshot view of reinforcement, in which delivery of a reinforcer strengthens whatever behavior happens to be occurring at the moment. molecularity of his approach is perhaps nowhere clearer than in a short piece he wrote called Farewell, My Lovely! …