The present paper reports a conceptual analysis of the relationship between the experimental analysis of behavior and radical behaviorism, and discusses (a) 4 features of the experimental analysis of behavior, based on the historical background of the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, (b) 3 features of radical behaviorism, (c) the relationship between the experimental analysis of behavior and radical behaviorism, and (d) behavior analysis and the replication crisis in psychology, as an example of the contemporary significance of such a conceptual analysis. Radical behaviorism does not refer simply to the scientific study of behavior, but rather it is an argument about the subject matter of psychology and its research methodology. Radical behaviorism could be viewed as the foundation of the experimental analysis of behavior. Its inextricably linked relationships provide a soundness for the replication crisis in psychology.

Applied behavior analysis is the science of behavior; radical behaviorism is the philosophy of applied behavior analysis. Applied behavior analysis focuses on the relation between socially significant behavior and relevant variables. The purpose of the present article is to discuss the close relationship between radical behaviorism and applied behavior analysis in the context of theory, research, and practice. The points of discussion include prediction and control, and replicability; interventions for changing steady state, causal, and correlational relationships; and interactions, integration, and detailed reconsideration of the 7 dimensions of applied behavior analysis that were elucidated by Baer, Wolf, and Risley (1968). Because radical behaviorism is a universal conceptual system, applied behavior analysis with radical behaviorism (a) is able to integrate research and practice with related fields and establish unique human service areas, and (b) can be used in research on topics of everyday life and practice. Because applied behavior analysis has an inclusive methodology and is able to accumulate robust and effective data, the logical structure of the philosophy of radical behaviorism is strengthened and elaborated through the research and practice of applied behavior analysis.

The purpose of the present article is to portray the context of the development of functional contextualism (Biglan, 1993; Hayes, 1993) by describing relevant history of behavior analysis in the United States and Japan from the 1980s to the 2010s. The present article comprises 4 parts: (a) introducing the root-metaphor method (Pepper, 1942), (b) describing trends in behavior analysis from 1980 to 1993, (c) describing trends in behavior analysis after 1993, and (d) presenting some relationships between functional contextualism, radical behaviorism, and other contextualisms in current behavior analysis. The present review suggests that the context of the development of functional contextualism was (a) problems of elementalism and over-explanation in the 3-term contingency paradigm, (b) interactions between radical behaviorism and interbehaviorism, (c) a split into separate communities of basic behavior analysis and applied behavior analysis, and (d) a weakness of the analytical units of behavior analysis in family and community settings and processes.

Behavior analysis based on radical behaviorism and the psychology of learning based on methodological behaviorism are closely related to each other, yet differences exist that cannot be ignored. To connect radical and methodological behaviorism, the present paper focuses on issues with prediction and control of behavior and identification of the functional relationship between the environment and behavior. Other areas such as control theory and machine learning are discussed so that functional relationships that should be proposed for the purposes of predicting and controlling behavior, and implications that the study of methodological behaviorism might have for the study of such functional relationships, can be considered.

Behavior analysis avoids positing mental events as causes of behavior, whereas psychology has produced one mental concept after another. Which is a better scientific “research programme”, one that posits mental states or one that does not posit them? From ancient times to the present, philosophy and science have progressed by using Ockham’s razor. Ockham’s razor is frequently summarized as “plurality should not be posited without necessity.” This concept promotes new discoveries and plays an important role in the sciences, including physics and biology. In addition, many writers have justified Ockham’s razor by proposing reasons why entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. It has been said that the discussion of parsimony took a probabilistic turn in the 20th century. Modern statistics can be used to analyze and justify Ockham’s razor. The present essay focuses on statistical test theories and analyzes their logic from the viewpoint of the philosophy of science in order to show that a “research programme” that does not posit mental states is preferable to one that does. The paper contends that behavior analysis has adopted a better scientific methodology.

Study objective: The present study examined effects of independent group-oriented contingencies on the speed of students’s preparations for making school lunches in a regular classroom at an elementary school. Design: A baseline phase and intervention phases I and II. Setting: The period of school lunch preparations in a first-grade regular classroom at a public elementary school. Participants: 38 first-grade students. Intervention: An independent group-oriented contingency intervention was conducted for the whole class. A visual timer was set for 4 min. If the participants on school lunch duty lined up in the corridor within 4 min, they got a sticker and verbal praise. Measures: The time it took the participants on school lunch duty to get out of the classroom at the end of the 4th period, line up in the corridor, and get ready to leave for the school kitchen, and the number of participants who were not ready to leave for the school kitchen. Results: After the intervention, the participants on school lunch duty used less time preparing to leave for the school kitchen and the number of those who were not ready to leave on time decreased. Conclusion: The use of a visual timer and an independent group-oriented contingency intervention resulted in many students routinely getting ready to prepare lunches more quickly than before. The results from a questionnaire given to the participants and their homeroom teacher suggested that the intervention was socially valid.

In its early days, applied behavior analysis (ABA) was extensively studied by researchers in the field of psychiatry. However, in the 1980s, the approach came to be regarded as a part of behavior therapy, and the principles of behavior analysis were absorbed into cognitive behavior therapy (CBT), which is now regarded as a third generation in a broad sense. It continues to develop as clinical behavior analysis (CBA). However, evaluation of the effectiveness of cognitive behavior therapy and clinical behavior analysis is influenced by empirically supported treatments (EST), and is mainly limited to group designs such as randomized controlled trials (RCT). Little psychiatric research has been done based on behavior analysis methodologies. The present paper (a) reviews the history of applied behavior analysis in psychiatric clinical practice, (b) organizes the history of cognitive behavior therapy, which is a standard treatment in current psychiatric practice, and describes its relationship to behavior analysis, (c) points out characteristics of and problems with the evidence that has been presented in support of the methodology of cognitive behavior therapy, and (d) discusses the importance of aiming for well-established practices based on the methodology of applied behavior analysis by integrating research evidence from group comparison designs with verification of practice effectiveness through single-case design methodology. A mechanism should be created to increase the use of the methodology of behavior analysis in the field of psychiatry.