JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 1998, 31, 705–706 NUMBER 4 (WINTER 1998)

ADVANCING BACKWARDS
P. A. LAMAL
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE

The proposal of Friman, Hayes, and Wilson (1998) that the concept of emotion be
incorporated into behavior analysis is questioned. Their proposal is undermined by the
problem of the verification of private events by others. A focus on private events, as
exemplified by the proposal of Friman et al., can lead to a reversion to notions of agency
and the autonomous individual. Also, the anchoring of hypothetical constructs to the
behavioral data language is ill advised.
DESCRIPTORS: private events, emotion, hypothetical constructs, verifiability

Friman, Hayes, and Wilson (1998) pro- event’’ (Friman et al., 1998, p. 140) that can
vide a cogent critique of emotion, but then be a predictor? If a child (per their example)
go on to propose that an analysis of derived is crying, complains of feeling anxious, and
relational responding provides a means for then runs away, these are, indeed, behavioral
fruitfully incorporating this admittedly events, but to label the set of events as ‘‘feel-
vague concept into behavior analysis. This ing anxious’’ does not mean that we are deal-
proposal raises a number of questions that ing with a feeling, a concept that the authors
have long been associated with discussions have earlier so effectively undermined. How
of private events. does the clinician know whether the client
An approach focused on such putative is being truthful when he or she asserts that
private events as thoughts and emotions is he or she is too anxious to go to work, has
undermined by the problem of verifiability obsessive thoughts, feels depressed? The cli-
(Zuriff, 1985, chap. 2), the same problem nician must rely on the client’s relevant pub-
that led to the demise of introspection. The lic behavior, much of which will be verbal
problem is that reports of private events can- self-report. But ‘‘first-person reports are not
not possibly be verified by others. And call- incorrigible guides to covert events, and in-
ing the private events behaviors (‘‘Thoughts ferences are drawn by the experimenter [or
are private verbal behavior’’; Friman et al., clinician], not the subject’’ (Zuriff, 1985, p.
1998, p. 148) does not solve the problem. 234). Furthermore, ‘‘Skinner’s theory im-
‘‘Thoughts’’ is a hypothetical construct be- plies that the connection between a private
cause the term ‘‘refer[s] to unobserved events event and a verbal response will not usually
within the organism’’ (Zuriff, 1985, p. 72). be a reliable one. He therefore does not trust
If it is countered that thoughts are observed first-person reports of private events and
by the person experiencing them, we are still does not use them as observation reports’’
faced with the problem of verifiability. (Zuriff, 1985, p. 28).
This problem is particularly salient in This criticism does not deny the existence
such applied domains as clinical work. What and importance of private events. Rather, it
independent measure allows the clinician to questions the value of referring to undefined
assert that ‘‘feeling anxious is a behavioral internal processes that can be observed by
others indirectly, if at all. Even if the day
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- were to come when various categories of self-
dressed to P. A. Lamal, Department of Psychology, Uni-
versity of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, North reports were found to be highly correlated
Carolina 28223-0001 (E-mail: palamal@email.uncc.edu). with various patterns of neurophysiological

705
706 P. A. LAMAL

and endocrine activity, it is difficult to imag- guage terms, such as those used to describe
ine clinicians routinely obtaining such infor- various emotions, are incorporated into be-
mation. Furthermore, the private would havioral science (Chiesa, 1994, pp. 24, 25).
then be public; the clinician would no lon- A focus on such hypothetical constructs
ger be dealing with private events. as thoughts entails threats to the empirical
It is fashionable today to attribute much, nature and objectivity of behavior analysis.
if not most, human behavior to the brain, This is because ‘‘hypothetical constructs are
perhaps as a result of the widespread public- associated with ‘existence propositions’
ity afforded ‘‘The Decade of the Brain’’ re- which assign ‘surplus meaning’ over and
search program. But the brain does not above observed correlations’’ (Zuriff, 1985,
function in a vacuum, and a failure to devote p. 73). The anchoring of such hypothetical
as much attention to the environmental his- constructs to the behavioral data language
tory of the individual, as well as the individ- can be seriously questioned.
ual’s current environment, can easily lead us
back to such notions as agency and the au-
tonomous individual, notions thought to REFERENCES
have been eliminated from behavior analysis Chiesa, M. (1994). Radical behaviorism: The philoso-
phy and the science. Boston: Authors Cooperative.
(see also Chiesa, 1994, p. 160). In my view, Friman, P. C., Hayes, S. C., & Wilson, K. G. (1998).
a focus on private events greases the rever- Why behavior analysts should study emotion: The
sionary slope. example of anxiety. Journal of Applied Behavior
Friman et al. (1998) are concerned with Analysis, 31, 137–156.
Zuriff, G. E. (1985). Behaviorism: A conceptual recon-
the ordinary-language term anxiety, which struction. New York: Columbia University Press.
they readily admit is vague and for which
Received April 13, 1998
they offer no technical definition. Serious Final acceptance June 15, 1998
problems arise, however, when ordinary-lan- Action Editor, David P. Wacker