Posted: January 1st, 2023
PSYC 6717 week 6 Discussion: Applications of Philosophical Underpinnings
Making logical deductions from a study relies on establishing causal relationships, linking antecedents, eliminating fallacies, and using an evidence-based approach to ascertain findings. In this study, the philosophical underpinnings are entrenched on a causal relationship between the psychological impacts of the adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccine on other people and its repudiation by unvaccinated people. These study implications ensure that future research questions concerning the topics can be based on a sound rationale that could extrapolate future studies regarding vaccine reception by people. The mental assent or dissent of an individual has been tied to their willingness to accept or reject the vaccine based on their past psychological experiences on the effects of the vaccine on recipients PSYC 6717 week 6 Discussion: Applications of Philosophical Underpinnings.
Causal relationships, the generalizability of the findings, and the implications of the results are viable tenets of philosophical underpinnings in this study. The study enunciates that the memory of an adverse effect of the vaccine on a person known or heard of by the proposed recipient culminates in vaccine rejection. The philosophical tenet of generalizability applies to a limited extent because the people who reject the vaccine because of emotions instigated by their mental disposition to the vaccine belong to the same group. The likelihood of vaccine rejection when an individual has learned of the adverse effects or the detriments on another individual is highly likely. However, to avoid committing a hasty generalization on the possibility of vaccine rejection because of mental dissent, the data used provides sample size information on the projected assent or dissent to the vaccine. Doing so ensures that the investigator does not run into the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi through hasty generalizations (Hitchcock, 2017). Therefore, applying rationale is the dynamic for philosophical underpinnings the study that resonates with the theoretical framework PSYC 6717 week 6 Discussion: Applications of Philosophical Underpinnings.
Hitchcock, D. (2017). Do the fallacies have a place in the teaching of reasoning skills or critical thinking?. In On reasoning and argument (pp. 401-408). Springer, Cham.
Have you ever wondered why it is relevant to understand the theory and philosophy that underpins the field of behavior analysis? In this week’s Learning Resources, Fryling (2013) discusses some ways behavior analytic theory and philosophy are relevant to the practice of applied behavior analysis. He focuses on its unique features of having a natural science perspective as well as comprehensive, integrated components. The natural science perspective of behavior analysis requires its constructs come from observable, socially significant events, as opposed to hypothetical constructs prevalent in mentalistic, traditional psychology and other helping professions.
Comprehensive, integrated components are a feature in behavior analysis demonstrated by the coordinated interdependence between behavior analytic theory and philosophy, experimental analysis of behavior (EAB), applied behavior analysis (ABA), and delivery of behavioral services.
Attention to the systemic, natural science approach and the coordinated integration of the components of behavior analysis are what distinguish it as a unique field and underpin the rationale for behavior analytic interventions. Because a behavior analyst will typically collaborate with other professionals who adhere to hypothetical constructs that can be anti-behavioral in nature, it is especially important that they be grounded in the theory and philosophy of behavioral analysis in order to effectively represent those ways of thinking about behavior PSYC 6717 week 6 Discussion: Applications of Philosophical Underpinnings.
In his book, Radical Behaviorism for ABA Practitioners, James M. Johnston provides the following reasons ABA practitioners should understand the philosophical underpinnings of their field (Graff, 2014):
Practitioners work at the interface between science and society and, therefore, must be able to bridge the gap between scientific and everyday understandings of how behavior works.
Most people’s beliefs about how behavior works conflict with established scientific findings.
Practitioners must be able to convince clients and other professionals to support objectives and procedures shown in the ABA literature to be effective.
Understanding radical behaviorism helps ensure consistency between the field’s science and the resulting technology.
Understanding radical behaviorism helps avoid conceptual backsliding that might be encouraged by everyday language. (p. 3)
In this Discussion, you will identify an article you retrieved from the behavior analytic literature (2012 to the present) that describes an intervention to address an applied concern. For the article you select, you will then evaluate how each of the following philosophical underpinnings of behavior analysis are represented: selectionism, determinism, empiricism, parsimony, and pragmatism.
Graff, R. B. (2014). A review of radical behaviorism for ABA practitioners by James M. Johnston [Review of the book Radical behaviorism for ABA practitioners, by J. M. Johnston]. APBA Reporter, 50, 1–3.
Post the title of the article you selected and provide a brief summary of the article. Next, include your evaluation of each philosophical underpinning of behavior analysis for the article, including selectionism, determinism, empiricism, parsimony, and pragmatism. Make sure to include a reference and link to your article. Use proper APA format and style.
Read your colleagues’ postings.
Note: For this discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your colleagues’ postings. Begin by clicking on the To Participate in this Discussion link, then select Create Thread to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click on Submit, you cannot delete or edit your own posts, and cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking on Submit!
Respond to at least two colleagues’ posts by expanding on each colleague’s explanation of how the article does or does not represent each of the philosophical underpinnings of behavior analysis. Provide examples.
Be sure to support your posts and responses with specific references to behavior-analytic theory and research. In addition to the Learning Resources, search the Walden Library and/or the internet for peer-reviewed articles to support your posts and responses. Use proper APA format and citations, including those in the Learning Resources.
Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you have learned and/or any insights that you have gained because of your colleagues’ comments PSYC 6717 week 6 Discussion: Applications of Philosophical Underpinnings.
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.