Watson (1913) stipulated that psychology should be defined as the study of human behaviour, therefore making Behaviourism the philosophy of the science of behaviour (Skinner, 1974). The development of the radical behavioural approach encompasses both the fields of evolutionary biology and behaviour modification generating an approach that has a biological foundation and a behaviour focus (Yeaton, 1982): behaviour being defined as “all we say and do” (Bailey & Burch, 2013). Behavioural practice studies the function and motivation behind behaviour to determine how it can be manipulated and the environment that sustains it (Whaley, & Malott, 1997).
To conduct a behavioural approach is to utilise scientific and practical methods to change a behaviour by implementing an intervention (Delprato & Midgley, 1992). This is achieved collecting a vast amount of data by using observation, scientific control and prediction (Bailey & Burch, 2013). A behaviour change is initiated due to the target behaviour being maladaptive and therefore the intervention is to decrease the occurrence of the behaviour or adaptive and therefore to increase the behaviour. The target behaviour is observed; this leads to the identification of if the behaviour is increasing or decreasing in frequency, degree, magnitude and consistency so a its trend is established and prediction made as to what the future direction of the behaviour is going to be (Cooper, Heron & Heward, 2014; Delprato & Midgley, 1992). In practice, this guarantees that the intervention is having the desired effect on the behaviour, when a change in behaviour is observed, adhering to the scientific law of cause and effect (Bailey & Burch, 2013). Furthermore, the behavioural approach continues to be scientific when the intervention is being implemented. Once a trend and prediction is established, a functional analysis is conducted to determine what precedes the behaviour and what occurs post the behaviour. This leads to a scientific determination of the antecedent, behaviour and consequence of behaviour in preparation for the intervention to be designed and implemented. These three components form the three-term contingency in operant conditioning and define behavioural practice as standardised and governed by scientific principles (Cooper, Heron & Heward, 2014).
Furthermore, the behavioural approach continues to be scientific when the intervention is being implemented by aiming to implement interventions that have a socially significant effect on the client and the population (Wolf, 1978). The socially significant behaviour changes may not be statistically significant, however in practice, they achieve positive behaviour change that benefits the client and society (Baer, Wolf & Risley, 1987). The behavioural science in practice uses specific technological terms in interventions that have very precise and stable definitions (O’Cooper, 1982). The Antecedent is defined as what precedes the behaviour and coincides motivation for a behaviour. The motive components are the discriminative stimulus and motivating operations as they establish, maintain or eliminate behaviour (Smith & Iwata, 1997). The discriminative stimulus is a specific stimulus that has to be present for reinforcement to be available therefore preconditioning whether the behaviour has reinforcement opportunities: the motivating operation alters how reinforcing the reinforcer is by either establishing or abolishing it. When a reinforcer is at satiation, the reinforcer is no longer reinforcing making it an abolishing operation: when a reinforcer is in deprivation, it is reinforcing making it an establishing operation. The final part of the 4-term contingency to be identified is the consequence, this is what occurs after the behaviour, and this will either reinforce the behaviour and increase the probability of the behaviour occurring again or punish the behaviour, decreasing the probability of the behaviour from occurring again. In practice, the identification of each specific element of the contingency is paramount as they ensure the effectiveness of the intention and lead to a practical behavioural approach that is reliable, replicable and effective (Smith & Iwata, 1997).
Although in practical terms, these are all elements of the behavioural method, consequently, the field has been deemed oversimplified (Yeaton, 1982) due to people outside of the field leading to the conclusion that that’s all behavioural analysis consists of. The interventions that behaviour analysts conduct in practice, lead to a positive behavioural change that generalises to all aspects of the clients’ life (O’Cooper, 1982). When analysing current behaviour, an appreciation of an entire learning history of reinforcement and punishment has to be conducted as this is what determines behaviour the (Skinner, 1974). The use of scientific observations as oppose to the reliance of constructs that cannot be disproved does not make behavioural practice oversimplified, but instead founded and scientific.
A scientific practice is progressive and proven to work therefore to be behavioural is to use evidence based practice-using methods that being made more efficient (Romanczyk, 2017). This is highlighted in Koocher and Keith-Spiegels (as cited in Bailey & Burch 2016) 9 core ethical principles for psychologists via the principles of the pursuit of excellence and the acceptance of accountability. To take a behavioural approach means to keep up to date with innovative research and comply with current rules and regulations (Bailey & Burch 2016). In behavioural practice a vast amount of data is collected and published leading to the efficiency of behavioural techniques being dynamic and constantly improving. The acceptance of accountability principle stipulates that a behaviour analyst must present their methods of analysis and interventions to their colleagues and therefore take ownership of their conclusions. Therefore the practice of behaviour analysis must be current, justifiable and open to improvement (Bailey & Burch 2016).
The existence of these ethical principles also opposes the common misconception that to be behavioural is to be unethical (Bailey & Burch, 2016). The ethics upheld in the 9 core principles include to never harm and to benefit others. Similar to the Hippocratic oath taken by medical doctors, every intervention a behaviourist puts into place in practice must be in the best interests of the client and never to inflict any harm. This includes refraining from treating a client with a method that you are inexperienced in and another professional would be more proficient at and collecting insufficient data surrounding the client so that the best possible outcome is not being met. This is also highlighted in 4 other components of the ethical principles (Bailey & Burch, 2016), which are; being just and therefore refraining from the use of aversive stimuli when possible; being faithful by having high integrity and honesty: showing care and compassion; and finally ensuring the client’s dignity is maintained and where possible, their wishes are able to be expressed and respected. Behaviour analysts adhere to these principles and also have further clear explicit instructions on ethical practice in the Professional and Ethical Compliance Code for Behaviour Analysts (Behaviour Analysis Certification Board, 2016) clarifying that a behavioural approach in practice, is an ethical approach.
Furthermore, another prominent principle included in the 9 core ethical principles is the notion of autonomy (as cited in Bailey & Burch, 2016). To promote autonomy means to propose interventions that lead to self-sufficient behaviour, which raises the important issue
of choice. Behavioural methods have been criticised and accused of diminishing the client’s free will by controlling their behaviour (Yeaton, 1982). However, the behaviours encouraged are adaptive and best for the client. This is challenged as an independent client has a right to make decisions about his/her life that may not be the healthiest or best for them such as unhealthy food choices and the opting out of daily schedules (Bannerman, Sheldon, Sherman & Harchik, 1990). This poses a question to behaviour analysts as they have the issue of a respecting a client’s life choices when the concept of choice is predetermined by past reinforcement and punishment contingencies (Skinner, 1971). Nonetheless, choice can be defined as having the option to two alternatives without coercion or force (Brigham, 1979). It is this perception of choice and freedom that every human has a right too. This perceived sense of freedom is what leads people to make passive, non-productive unhealthy choices such as binge eating or having a nap (Bannerman, Sheldon, Sherman & Harchik, 1990). In practice, behaviour analysts have to consider that with each the client who is unable to make choices about their treatment goals that the interventions implemented provide the opportunity for an overall improvement in habilitation.
The practice of behaviour analysis is the philosophy of the science of behaviour, however, it is more integrate than people outside the field may assume. To be behavioural is to conduct methods that are scientific, replicable and utilise technological terms nonetheless; this is only the method to achieve the goal of positive behaviour change. The adherence to strict ethical guidelines and the primary goal of the improvement of lives lead to an applied scientific practice that is not just effective but also for the benefit of the individual client and the entire population. Therefore, to take a behavioural approach is to enrich an environment and improve lives utilising methods that are both dynamic and constantly improving.