A Brief History of Behavior Analysis, and a Rant on Environmental Determinism

I often find it funny that I'm in love with a science that has evolved almost by accident, with many near-death experiences along the way. To toot my own horn I'm going to describe a very brief overview of the history of behavior analysis, with no outside research (not to say that this summary is inaccurate; I just wouldn't use it for your 12th grade science paper, unless...). And then I'll rant, rant, rant, until I become sick of writing :-)

So where do we begin when we talk about "the history of psychology?" We'll start with Freud, whom although was very introspective, he was an environmental determinist. Essentially, environmental determinism is a school that preaches that our behavior (our person, our likes and dislikes, and everything about the way we go about our lives) is learned and that we were not born to be dentists, farmers, rich, or poor. Biological determinisn is essentially the oppossite theory, stating that our behavior is a product of our biological makeup (genes, etc).

A little later, a Russian physiologist name Ivan Pavlov discovered the phenomena of "classical conditioning", which laid the tracks for modern psychologists Edward Thorndike (who put cats in a puzzle box and discovered a learning curve associated with successive, successful trials), and John Watson and his famous "Litte Albert" experiment (if you have time, read about the Little Albert experiment; it's a classic).

Pavlov, Thorndike, and Watson basically (though simplisticly described here) paved the way for a curious man with a BA in creative writing who somehow ended up with a Ph D in psychology from Harvard University. Burrhus Frederic Skinner published his first work, The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis in 1938, sparking a movement of scientists throwing rats and pigeons in cages with a lever and a light, reinforcing and punishing specific responses and measuring the frequency of behavior on a graph; before this, no other approach to psychology had taken such rigorous and objective measurements to support their hypotheses and conclusions.

And for the next 20 years or so, behaviorists ran multiple experiments with rats and pigeons, and the world started to wonder what the fuss was all about. It wasn't until Ayllon and Michael (1959) when the all of the cool stuff scientists were learning about rats in a cage was transfered into a real life, applied, human setting. And that, my friend, served as the catalyst for the creation of the field of applied behavior analysis.

Remember our good friend Freud who I mentioned earlier? There's a fundamental similarity between Freud and Skinner, which that they were both environmental determinists (Skinner more so than Freud). Environmental determinism is a key principle of behavior analysis: the effects of our actions determines whether we will repeat them. And since Skinner, many behavioral experiments and applications have shown this to be the case.

Not all scientists agreed with Skinner, and a number of scientists abandoned behavior analysis and began to shift to a more cognitive, mentalist perspective, leaving a few Skinner box junkies hanging on by a loose thread. And more emphasis began to be placed on our genes and our brain (and other biological conditions). Some have even referred to the behavior analysis craze as "the Dark Ages of psychology."

Behavior analysis became unpopular within the scientific community. No one really understood how rats in a box could transfer to real-life, human settings, because humans are much more complex than rats, right?

But then, something great happened. Sometime in the late 70's (or was it the early 80's...) a man by the name of Ivar Lovaas took the principles used on the rat in box, applied them to children labeled autistic (whom many felt autism was a genetic, biological disorder), and turned the children into normal, functioning human beings with no residual traces of any "autistic" behaviors. This is what I like to call the "SLAM DUNK" for behavior analysis. And since Lovaas, the public misconception is slowly lifting, and behavior analysis is beginning to receive the credit it deserves. ^[1]

What's so special about the Lovaas experiment? Well, a few things. First, it changed the quality of life for a number of individuals, and it has provided hope for thousands of others. But I think the more important point is that the experiment took a seemingly biological problem and "removed" it, completely. What does this show? Well, there's a big probability that autism is learned, and that we are not born "autistic". And even if we are born "autistic" it makes no sense to blame the biological variables for the "disorder", when we can modify an environment to eliminate "autistic" behaviors and establish functioning, socially acceptable behaviors.

Here's the big picture: people think that "mental disorders" are similar to other disorders, like the flu or lupus. People think that you can "catch" a mental disorder like you can catch the flu. So in turn, we treat mental disorders like we do with any other disorder; we medicate, evaluate, and continue to medicate. But the problem never goes away. We nearly mask it with drugs. It's an easy fix for society, because it doesn't have to put in the time and the resources to manage the behavioral problems, and the drug companies get richer and richer each and every day.

We hurt ourselves by taking drugs to fix behavioral problems. The drugs need to have minimal success to be approved by the FDA, even when the effects of the drug influence a certain part of the brain that is thought, but not proven, to influence behavior patterns. It's becoming a commonly held notion in the psychological community that depression is no longer caused by abnormal levels of serotonin; how many people do you know that take SSRIs? It's chilling, bro.

Let me ask you this: a number of Hollywood stars who have children labeled "autistic" are involved in the advocation of specific diets (gluten free) and treatments (coping therapy). Say you have a 2 year old who only cries, hits, and screams... what will cutting wheat out of his/her diet do to influence that behavior? Nothing. What will teaching the child how to cope do to his behavior? Nothing. Why won't teaching the child to learn how to cope influence his behavior? Because the child does not even "know" what coping is. "Coping" is a metaphorical, abstract idea that we have created as high-functioning, highly verbal human beings. You'll be lucky if you can get that "autistic" 2 year old to touch his nose on command, let alone "deal with stress". (If you can find me a 2 year old who is familiar with coping and all that it entails, please e-mail me. I'd be amazed to hear about it.)

And that is why we have to treat the child with "autism" is exactly like Rudolf the Rat. They are non-verbal organisms with a limited behavioral repertoire, until they develop the skills that are necessary to thrive in our contrived social system. We teach him, step by step, day by day, using the same principles we use in the rat lab, until the child develops the capacity to be verbal, and then we can teach him those complex ideas such as "coping" and "dealing with stress." (yes, this is a simplistic way of putting it.)

Environmental determinism. Learn it. Know it. Live it.

^[1] Kristen pointed out that it wasn't actually Lovaas who was responsible for the explosion of behavior analysis as a treatment for autism. It was actually a woman by the name of Catherine Maurice wrote a book called "Let Me Hear Your Voice," a detailed account of her struggle with a daughter and son labeled autistic, and their complete recovery. She's right. She also pointed out that behavior analysis was never really popular to begin with. She's right about that, too.