Control: A History of Behavioral Psychology (review)

John A. Mills. Control: A History of Behavioral Psychology. New York: New York University Press, 1998. xii + 246 pp. $37.50.

This history of behavioral psychology examines the cultural milieu from which behaviorism emerges, and traces its rise to dominance in American psychology. John A. Mills reviews the background and writings of contributors to behaviorism's theoretical and methodological development, calling attention to cross-disciplinary influences from philosophy, social science, and psychology. The purpose of this scholarly treatise is to critique both the theory and practice of behaviorism in America, because "its dominance in American psychology blocks our efforts to understand its role and its nature" (p. 1).

Refreshingly, the study is not limited to well-known figures of psychology like Hull, Watson, and Skinner, but also includes the contributions of theorist Albert Weiss, of animal researcher Zing-Yang Kuo, of psychologist Grace de Laguna, and of the cultural realists of the early twentieth century, to cite but a few examples. The strength of the presentation is in Mills's attention to the broad scope of behaviorism, which he defines as a set of principles and methods nourished by pragmatic positivism, a commitment to social action, and an emphasis on doing rather than theorizing.

While acknowledging that their theories vary widely and their experimental methodology is complex, Mills believes that behaviorists share a core set of commitments that permeate American psychology: (1) the goal is the prediction and control of behavior, theory being secondary; (2) philosophical speculation and introspection are rejected; and (3) the truth is established by investigating physically observable facts. "American psychologists . . . are trained to think behavioristically from their earliest undergraduate years, usually without being made aware, or realizing, that this is the case" (p. 1).

In many important respects, Mills's most appreciative audience may be historians of science, and particularly those readers who are well grounded in both the tenets and methods of behavioral psychology. Others will have difficulty assessing the significance of the facts presented and the conclusions drawn; at worst, they will probably find the presentation both confusing and dry. Especially disconcerting is the author's tendency to switch between behaviorism as a point of view and as a school of psychology. He argues on the one hand, for example, that behaviorism has permeated American psychology, while contending at the same time that it has "collapsed into a group of obscure sects" (p. 22).

This is a refreshingly broad history, but one that is neither comprehensive nor unbiased. Although Mills paints with a broad brush in fewer than two hundred pages, he unhesitatingly draws absolute conclusions that are not supported by his general argumentative approach. "I will advance Skinner's position as strongly as I can. Then I will show that, even in its most robust version, it fails on all fronts" (p. 129). His brief scrutiny of Skinner hardly achieves that goal. (For a genuinely scholarly debate, see The Selection of Behavior [1988], edited by A. Charles Catania and Steven Harnad.)

Mills has an ax to grind, a disdain betrayed by the emotionally laden language of his writing: he repeatedly equates American psychology's pragmatic emphasis on serving society with a need to control. The use of the word "control" to trigger a negative reaction is legendary and tiresome. Mills describes behaviorists as sharing a "lust for quantification" and an "obsession with prediction and control" (p. 9; italics mine, here and below). Other examples of his unnecessary use of the pejorative include the "crippling limitations" of behavioral methodology (p. 10) and the "embarrassing failures" of drive theory (p. 15). His target is not limited to behaviorism, for he condemns American psychology as a whole: "Americans have always linked theory closely to application, even at the risk of being simpleminded or crude" (p. 5); "American psychology's fundamental failure resides in its . . . contentless technological sophistication" (p. 75).

Mills describes his work as...