English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Branch and Vollmer (2004) argue that use of the word behavior as a count noun is ungrammatical and, worse, mischaracterizes and ultimately degrades the concept of the operant. In this paper I argue that use of behavior as a count noun is a reflection of its grammatical status as a hybrid of count and mass noun. I show that such usage is widespread across colloquial, referential, and scientific documents including the writings of major figures in behavior analysis (most notably B. F. Skinner), books describing its applications, and its major journals. Finally, I argue against the assertion that such usage degrades the concept of the operant, at least in any meaningful way, and argue instead that employing eccentric definitions for ordinary words and using arcane terms to describe everyday human behavior risks diminishing the influence of behavior analysis on human affairs.

Up with this I shall not put: 10 Reasons why I disagree with Branch and Vollmer on Behavior used as a count noun