{"title":"The Elephant in the Field","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/s42822-024-00160-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p>The recent series of papers between Sampaio and Haydu (Behavior and Social Issues 32(1):115–133, 2023a; Behavior and Social Issues 32(1):141–146, 2023b) and Ardila-Sánchez and Hayes (Behavior and Social Issues 32(1):134–140, 2023) on the cultural milieu construct is of critical import for culturo-behavior science. By constructing a revised version of Houmanfar and colleagues’ (Ardila-Sánchez et al., Behavior and Social Issues 28(1):298–315, 2019: Houmanfar, Ardila-Sánchez, & Alavosius, Behavior science perspectives on culture and community, pp. 151–170, Springer, 2020: Houmanfar & Rodrigues, Behavior and Social Issues, 15(1):13–30, 2006: Houmanfar, Rodrigues, & Ward, Behavior and Social Issues 19(1):78–103, 2010) elaborated metacontingency model, Sampaio and Haydu address confusion inherent in the concept of the cultural milieu by separating it into two different components—cultural antecedents and selecting environment variables—with different functional properties. This allows the cultural milieu to be conceptualized more coherently within a behavior-analytic framework, a framework into which the cultural milieu does not quite fit when described in interbehavioral terms. However, given differences in integrated field and contingency logic, an interbehaviorally conceptualized cultural milieu does not belong in any metacontingency model, elaborated or otherwise. The purpose of this paper is to address this issue—the elephant in the field—and confusing aspects of the cultural milieu that Sampaio and Haydu do not address when one considers the elaborated metacontingency model from an interbehavioral perspective. In doing so, I discuss issues with the model warranting attention and the prospect of a unified culturo-behavior science.</p>","PeriodicalId":44553,"journal":{"name":"Behavior and Social Issues","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavior and Social Issues","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-024-00160-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The recent series of papers between Sampaio and Haydu (Behavior and Social Issues 32(1):115–133, 2023a; Behavior and Social Issues 32(1):141–146, 2023b) and Ardila-Sánchez and Hayes (Behavior and Social Issues 32(1):134–140, 2023) on the cultural milieu construct is of critical import for culturo-behavior science. By constructing a revised version of Houmanfar and colleagues’ (Ardila-Sánchez et al., Behavior and Social Issues 28(1):298–315, 2019: Houmanfar, Ardila-Sánchez, & Alavosius, Behavior science perspectives on culture and community, pp. 151–170, Springer, 2020: Houmanfar & Rodrigues, Behavior and Social Issues, 15(1):13–30, 2006: Houmanfar, Rodrigues, & Ward, Behavior and Social Issues 19(1):78–103, 2010) elaborated metacontingency model, Sampaio and Haydu address confusion inherent in the concept of the cultural milieu by separating it into two different components—cultural antecedents and selecting environment variables—with different functional properties. This allows the cultural milieu to be conceptualized more coherently within a behavior-analytic framework, a framework into which the cultural milieu does not quite fit when described in interbehavioral terms. However, given differences in integrated field and contingency logic, an interbehaviorally conceptualized cultural milieu does not belong in any metacontingency model, elaborated or otherwise. The purpose of this paper is to address this issue—the elephant in the field—and confusing aspects of the cultural milieu that Sampaio and Haydu do not address when one considers the elaborated metacontingency model from an interbehavioral perspective. In doing so, I discuss issues with the model warranting attention and the prospect of a unified culturo-behavior science.
摘要 桑帕约和海杜（Behavior and Social Issues 32(1):115-133, 2023a；Behavior and Social Issues 32(1):141-146, 2023b）以及阿迪拉-桑切斯和海斯（Behavior and Social Issues 32(1):134-140, 2023）最近发表的一系列关于文化环境建构的论文对文化行为科学至关重要。通过构建侯曼法及其同事的修订版（Ardila-Sánchez et al., Behavior and Social Issues 28(1):298-315, 2019: Houmanfar, Ardila-Sánchez, & Alavosius, Behavior Science perspectives on culture and community, pp：Houmanfar & Rodrigues, Behavior and Social Issues, 15(1):13-30, 2006：Sampaio和Haydu通过将文化环境分为具有不同功能特性的两个不同组成部分--文化先决条件和选择环境变量，解决了文化环境概念中固有的混淆问题。这使得文化环境的概念在行为分析框架中更加连贯，而在行为间分析框架中，文化环境并不完全符合。然而，鉴于综合领域和或然逻辑的差异，行为间概念化的文化环境并不属于任何元或然模型。本文的目的就是要解决这个问题--这个领域中的大象--以及桑帕约和海杜在从行为间视角考虑精心制作的元权变模型时没有解决的文化环境中令人困惑的方面。在此过程中，我将讨论该模型中值得关注的问题以及统一的文化行为科学的前景。
期刊介绍：
The primary intellectual framework for Behavior and Social Issues is the science of behavior analysis and its sub-discipline of cultural systems analysis, but contributions from contrasting viewpoints will occasionally be considered if of specific interest to behavior analysts. We recommend that potential authors examine recent issues to determine whether their work is appropriate to the journal. Appropriate contributions include theoretical and conceptual analyses, research articles and brief reports, dialogues, and research reviews. Behavior and Social Issues is an appropriate forum for the work of senior scholars in the field, many of whom serve on the editorial board, as well as for the work of emerging scholars, including students, who have an interest in the contributions of a natural science of behavior to constructing cultures of social justice, human rights, and environmental sustainability.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
