Search

Background: In the past decades, behavioral medicine has attained global recognition. Due to its global reach, a critical need has emerged to consider whether the original definition of behavioral medicine is still valid, comprehensive, and inclusive, and to reconsider the main tasks and goals of the International Society of Behavioral Medicine (ISBM), as the umbrella organization in the field. The purpose of the present study was to (i) update the definition and scope of behavioral medicine and its defining characteristics; and (ii) develop a proposal on ISBM's main tasks and goals. Method: Our study used the Delphi method. A core group prepared a discussion paper. An international Delphi panel rated questions and provided comments. The panel intended to reach an a priori defined level of consensus (i.e., 70%). Results: The international panel reached consensus on an updated definition and scope of behavioral medicine as a field of research and practice that builds on collaboration among multiple disciplines. These disciplines are concerned with development and application of behavioral and biomedical evidence across the disease continuum in clinical and public health domains. Consensus was reached on a proposal for ISBM's main tasks and goals focused on supporting communication and collaboration across disciplines and participating organizations; stimulating research, education, and practice; and supporting individuals and organizations in the field. Conclusion: The consensus on definition and scope of behavioral medicine and ISBM's tasks and goals provides a foundational step toward achieving these goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

J. R. Kantor (1888-1984) developed and promoted an often underappreciated psychological system he called interbehaviorism that attempted to organize scientific values into a coherent system of psychology. Kantor insisted that in all scientific behavior the scientist needed to differentiate between constructs and events. If we were to develop constructs it would be only after careful observation of the actual events in context. He felt that his mission of forging naturalistic constructs for psychological events could be achieved only through scientific system building, and this was the activity that consumed his entire career. The present paper focuses on scientific system construction with the intent of (a) clarifying the nature and value of scientific system construction from Kantor's perspective, (b) articulating Kantor's system-building procedure, and (c) outlining the system of interbehavioral psychology produced in accordance with that procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Much of the literature attempting to explain revival phenomena has resorted to psychological explanations to the exclusion of sociological factors. The purpose of this paper is to provide an explanation of revival behavior employing a normative framework. Four propositions are stated, each the prerequisite for the next. First, sinner and the revival culture must interact, and definitions of self and others must be forged. Second, structural facilities must be available for learning the Christian role. Third, opportunity structures must present themselves to afford the expression of appropriate behaviors that are in accord with pre-established patterns. Fourth, the status passage from salvation to sanctification is an orderly one, requiring that a sinner be saved before sanctified. The position taken Is that in order to arrive at adequate explanation, revival behavior must be observed as a social process. Therefore, the necessary requisite of the participant observation strategy is noted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In view of the revanchist ideology that often passes under the rubric of sociobiology, a perspective that insists on the learned nature of social behavior is welcome. Undoubtedly, a search for the causes and careers of human behavior is a legitimate enterprise in sociology, but in the context of Molm's paper, a different question must be raised regarding behaviorist sociology. The root criticism of behavioral sociology, it seems to me, is the one she attributes to symbolic interactionism. The view that human emit behavior, Molm contends, is not a mechanistic theory at all because operant behaviors are not automatically elicited by any prior stimulus, they simply occur not elicited by a stimulus. If something that is yet to happen is the cause of the behavior that is about to be emitted, then surely it is the anticipation of receiving the reinforcement that is causing the behavior. I am sure Molm is correct that the argument about behavioral sociology is really about behavioral sociology is really about the goals and aims of science.