This article introduces a 1979 symposium held at Furman University in honor of the centennial of John B. Watson’s birth and reproduces B. F. Skinner’s unpublished contribution to it. Watson was commemorated in presentations by James V. McConnell, Fred S. Keller, and Skinner. The introduction describes the symposium’s structure, the presenters’ professional records, and their views on Watson’s behaviorism, situating the speech within its historical context. McConnell offered a critical yet admiring view of Watson, whereas Keller emphasized Watson’s influence on behaviorism’s application, particularly in education. Skinner’s presentation, titled “What John B. Watson Meant to Me,” reflected on both his intellectual debt to Watson and their philosophical differences. This is likely the lengthiest and most in-depth of Skinner’s appreciations and analysis of Watson’s work. In publishing the presentation, the article contributes to the historiography of behavior analysis and clarifies the relationship between two of the most influential figures in the history of behaviorism.

Based on a symposium at the 2018 meeting of the Association for Behavior Analysis International (ABAI; E. K. Morris, 2018), the December 2022 issue of Perspectives on Behavior Science (PoBS)-ABAI's house journal-published a special section on teaching the history of behavior analysis. It was inspired by George Miller's (1969) urging that psychologists promote human welfare by discovering how "to give psychology away" (p. 1074). The special section of PoBS urged readers to promote the history of behavior analysis by giving it away. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Teaching the history of behavior analysis can be approached in many ways. One is to embed history in courses on the field's discipline and subdisciplines (e.g., its basic and applied sciences and their conceptual foundations) and practice. Another is to teach courses on the histories of the discipline and subdisciplines and practice. Still another is to teach a stand-alone course that includes these approaches and more (e.g., their integration, relations with other sciences, the influence of U.S. history and culture). The purpose of this article is to foster teaching the stand-alone course. It has four sections. The first addresses structural considerations: course titles, catalog descriptions, curricula, certification, and accreditation. The second addresses contextual considerations: purposes of teaching history; distinctions between history and historiography; and starting points in selecting textbooks. The third addresses functional considerations: course content organized by topics and their required and recommended readings. The fourth discusses how the course might be revised by eliminating topics (e.g., the Middle Ages), expanding topics and subtopics (e.g., the behaviorisms, philosophy of science) and adding topics and subtopics (e.g., institutional history; diversity, inclusion, and equity). Given the field's continuing development as a science, system, and practice and the rapid growth in its number and variety of its members, its history is becoming its common core-and a means of teaching it. The course elucidates the field's integrity; incorporates the entirety of its community of students, scientists, scholars, and practitioners; and advance its coherence as a cultural practice.

Journal of Applied Behavior AnalysisVolume 54, Issue 4 p. 1297-1299 In Memoriam Frances Degen Horowitz (1932-2021): Her legacy to behavior analysis Edward K. Morris, Corresponding Author Edward K. Morris [email protected] Department of Applied Behavioral Science, University of Kansas Address correspondence to the author at Department of Applied Behavioral Science, 4001 Dole Human Development Center, University of Kansas, 1000 Sunnyside Avenue, Lawrence, KS 66045. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author Edward K. Morris, Corresponding Author Edward K. Morris [email protected] Department of Applied Behavioral Science, University of Kansas Address correspondence to the author at Department of Applied Behavioral Science, 4001 Dole Human Development Center, University of Kansas, 1000 Sunnyside Avenue, Lawrence, KS 66045. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author First published: 01 September 2021 https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.879Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. REFERENCES Baer, D. M. (1993). A brief, selective history of the Department of Human Development and Family Life at the University of Kansas: The early years. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 569-572. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1993.26-569 Goodall, K. (1972, November). Shapers at work. Psychology Today, 6, 53-63, 132-138. Horowitz, F. D. (1975). Living among the ABAs – Retrospect and prospect. In E. Ramp & G. Semb (Eds.), Behavior analysis: Areas of research and application (pp. 3-15). Prentice-Hall. Horowitz, F. D. (2003). Recipe for a department: One part Baer, one part Wright, add other ingredients, stir, and nurture. In K. S. Budd & T. Stokes (Eds.), A small matter of proof: The legacy of Donald M. Baer (pp. 233-239). Context Press. Oyama, S. (1985). The ontogeny of information: Developmental systems and evolution. Cambridge University Press. Volume54, Issue4Fall 2021Pages 1297-1299 ReferencesRelatedInformation

This article reports a study of the founding of applied behavior analysis through its publications. Our methods included hand searches of sources (e.g., journals, reference lists), search terms (i.e., early, applied, behavioral, research, literature), inclusion criteria (e.g., the field’s applied dimension), and (d) challenges to their face and content validity. Our results were 36 articles published between 1959 and 1967 that we organized into 4 groups: 12 in 3 programs of research and 24 others. Our discussion addresses (a) limitations in our method (e.g., the completeness of our search), (b) challenges to the validity of our methods and results (e.g., convergent validity), and (c) priority claims about the field’s founding. We conclude that the claims are irresolvable because identification of the founding publications depends significantly on methods and because the field’s founding was an evolutionary process. We close with suggestions for future research.

Journal of the History of the Behavioral SciencesVolume 55, Issue 1 p. 84-86 BOOK REVIEW HISTORIES OF HUMAN ENGINEERING: TACT AND TECHNOLOGY , Derksen's, MaartenCambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 2017. 270 pp. $110.00 (hardback). ISBN 978–1–107–50703–2. Edward K. Morris, Professor of Applied Behavioral Science University of Kansas, Lawrence, KansasSearch for more papers by this author Edward K. Morris, Professor of Applied Behavioral Science University of Kansas, Lawrence, KansasSearch for more papers by this author First published: 18 January 2019 https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbs.21954Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume55, Issue1WINTER 2019Pages 84-86 RelatedInformation

This is a historical note on a precursor of the concept of behavioral momentum in the late 1950s and early 1960s, in particular, Charles B. description of it in terms of behavioral durability. The note is based largely on two email exchanges we had with John A. (Tony) Nevin, who offered insights on behavioral momentum as a term and a concept that are fit to be public on the occasion of this issue of the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior in his honor. Nevin addressed graduate work at Columbia University, the Newtonian analogy, the term behavioral momentum, and precursors of his work that are now lost in history. Ferster's description, though, was more compellingly modern than the others and the one first based in research on human operant behavior.

Mills’ book begins as a self-stated intellectual history of behavioral psychology, but in the end is a social constructionist critique of the very idea of a natural science of behavior. In between, it offers brief but welcome coverage of overlooked behaviorists (e.g., Guthrie, Kantor, Kuo), well-researched critiques of neobehaviorists (e.g., Hull), and praise and proper caution about Skinner (e.g., early scholarship and inductive fallacies, respectively). Unfortunately, its treatment of Skinner contains some rather rudimentary misunderstandings, for instance, that he was antitheoretical, adopted a mechanistic form of materialism, and adhered to an operationism that was explanatory, not descriptive. In this, and in its treatment of behavioral engineering, the book’s scholarship is dated. Still, the book is a must-read for professional scholars of the history of behaviorism.

The effectiveness of social consequences as positive reinforcers for children in natural settings and their weaknesses as such in laboratory settings are described, and an argument based on the methodology of conditioned reinforcement research is developed to account for this discrepancy. Parallels are drawn between (a) the different methods for establishing (training) and assessing (testing) conditioned reinforcers and (b) the different contexts in which social reinforcers are established and delivered. First, neither conditioned nor social reinforcers are very effective when delivered in isolation (extinction) from the conditions in which they presumably acquire their function—the training conditions of conditioned reinforcers or the natural environment of social reinforcers. Second, the more complex scheduling methods used in recent conditioned reinforcement research are analogous to the complex conditions under which social reinforcers are delivered in the natural environment; in these cases, the stimuli are substantially more effective as reinforcers. By taking into account the context in which social reinforcers are delivered, a basis is provided for explaining their differential effectiveness.

Nathaniel “Nate” Gene Smith, 38, of Lawrence, Kansas, passed away on July 1, 2014. Born on June 20, 1976, his hometown was Bay City, MI. He graduated summa cum laude from Central Michigan University in 1999 with a BS in psychology and a minor in gerontology. In 2000, he entered the doctoral program in the Department of Human Development and Family Life (HDFL) at the University of Kansas, now the Department of Applied Behavioral Science (ABS). His advisor was Professor L. Keith Miller, now retired. At the time of his death, Nate was co-advised by Professors Miller and Edward K. Morris. He had completed his Master’s degree and his dissertation research. He only needed to take his comprehensives examination and defend his dissertation to be awarded his doctorate degree.

In this article, I comment on Normand's, Vyse's, Friman's, Schlinger's, and Reed's articles on publishing books, journal articles, letters to the editor, and columns outside of behavior analysis, that is, "outside the box," as well as communicating with editors, authors, and journalists. Among the topics I address are the prerequisite repertoires and these authors' guidance (e.g., task analyses), as well as technical terms and language and the many opportunities available to us, yet also caveats about how, whether, and when we should publish outside the box. In the process, I include lessons I have learned from submitting my own manuscripts outside the box and suggestions I have gleaned from my failures and successes. In conclusion, if the field values publishing outside the box, then, it should analyze the necessary repertoires and provide systematic instruction in them.

This paper addresses the legacy of John B. Watson’s (1913b) article, “Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It,” for applied behavior analysis, in particular, for four of its dimensions: the conceptual systems, behavioral, analytic, and applied dimensions. I begin with brief histories of behaviorism, behavior analysis, and applied behavior analysis. I situate Watson’s article in the psychology of his day. And, I locate the defining features of his behaviorism in its opening sentence: “Psychology as the behaviorist views it is a purely objective experimental branch of natural science” (p. 158). The legacy of “natural science” is the conceptual systems dimension of applied behavior analysis. The system was a metaphysical behaviorism and descriptive positivism, not a methodological behaviorism and a logical positivism. The legacy of “objective” is the behavioral dimension of applied behavior analysis. Objectivity was not objectivism. The legacy of “experimental” is its analytic dimension. Prediction and control were means for understanding behavior, not goals in themselves. Application was not a defining feature of Watson’s behaviorism, but he addressed experimental research on behavior of societal importance and mentioned its application in vocational bureaus. Thus, its legacy was, in part, the applied dimension of applied behavior analysis.