The Relation of Research to The Social Process
It is recognized that the object of research in both the material and the social worlds is control, or it might be said to be the supplying of materials and situations for the satisfaction of human desires—the providing of what men want. There can be no question that there has been research since the world began. The bow and arrow, the spring trap, the invention of poisons, and so on, represent research by primitive man; and even the life of animals is a constant experimentation and a learning process.
What we have in mind at present is, of course, a more organized and continuous approach which we call scientific. From this standpoint the achievements in the physical and biological sciences have been positive and enormous. No one questions that medical research has modified the social process and secured greater control of one of the aspects of life, as when Koch discovered the tubercular bacillus; or Sammelweiss in Vienna observed with solicitude and profound reflection that the mortality in surgical cases in one ward of his hospital was five times as great as in another, observed further that the operators in the ward of high mortality usually came directly from the dissecting rooms, concluded that they were carrying "cadaver" to the wounds of the patients, and ordered them to wash their hands in chloride of lime; or when Bruce in British Uganda, seeking the cause of sleeping sickness, caused specimens of all insects from all localities
( 176) to be sent in by the chiefs and the missionaries, made a spot map of the incidence of sleeping sickness and spot maps of the incidence of all the insects, and through superimposition discovered that the map of sleeping sickness and the map representing the tsetse fly coincided.
The physical and biological sciences have the advantage of experimentation and instrumentation, and are impeded by less resistance to change than is the field of social interaction. In the social sciences the problem is not mainly the control of the material world but of the behavior of individuals as members of a society. The subject matter of all the social sciences is in fact fundamentally behavior. And here experimentation with the human materials is limited, and resistance to change is more stubborn on account of the sanctity of custom and the rivalry of personal interests.
I find that I have been invited to be on this occasion "as much of an anthropologist, philosopher, sociologist, and aesthete as I care to make of myself at one time." Some of those things I don't want to be at all and I shall attempt to show, mainly by examples, the present approach to the control of behavior and the social process in the field with which I am most familiar, with so much of the methodological indications as may be involved.
The student of behavior whether social psychologist, sociologist, criminologist, or psychiatrist, is at present approaching the problem of behavior from the situational standpoint. The situation in which the person finds himself is taken as containing the configuration of the factors conditioning the behavior reaction. Of course, it is not the spatial material situation which is meant, but the situation of social relationships. It involves all the institutions and mores—family, gang, church, school, the press, the movies, and the attitudes and values of other
( 177) persons with which his own come in conflict or co-operation. The individual always possesses a repertory of attitudes (tendencies to act) and values (goals toward which the action is directed), depending in each case on biological constitution on the one hand and social conditioning on the other. A study of the concrete situations which the individual encounters, into which he is forced, or which he creates will disclose the character of his adaptive strivings and the processes of adjustment. The study of the situation, the behavior in the situation, the changes brought about in the situation, and the resulting change in behavior represent the nearest approach the social scientist is able to make to the use of experiment in social research.
The situational approach is, of course, not a new procedure. It is the method in use by both the experimental physiologists and the psychologists who prepare situations, introduce the subject into the situation, observe the behavior reactions, change the situation, and observe the changes in the reactions. Child rendered one point in the situation more stimulating than others by applying an electric needle or other stimulus and made heads grow where tails would otherwise have grown. The situational character of the animal experimentation of the psychologists is well known. The rat, for example, in order to open a door, must not only stand on a platform placed in a certain position, but at the same time pull a string. A complete study of situations would give a complete account of the rat's attitudes, values, and intelligence.
I will first give some examples of the approaches which may be made from the situational standpoint in the field of social interaction. In connection with the problem of nature and nurture as conditioning intelligence, Freeman and his associates in Chicago placed six hundred
( 178) children in foster homes and studied the results. They were apparently accepting a challenge of Terman who had said: "A crucial experiment would be to take a large number of very young children from the lower classes and after placing them in the most favorable environment obtainable, compare their later mental development with that of the children born into the best homes." [1] In this experiment comparisons were made, in the case of one group, between results on intelligence tests which had been given before adoption and results after they had been in the foster home a number of years. Another comparison was made between children of the same family who had been placed in different homes, the home being rated on a scheme which took into consideration the material environment, evidence of culture, occupation of foster father, education and social activity of foster parents. Both of these comparisons had held heredity constant, letting the situation vary. A third comparison held environment constant, letting heredity vary, that is, it concerned itself with a comparison of the intelligence of the own children of the foster parents and of the foster children. The results, stated in a word, show that when two unrelated children are reared in the same home, differences in intelligence tend to decrease, and that when two related children are reared in different homes they tend to differ from one another in intelligence. This study was limited to the question of intelligence, but it is obvious that a fundamental study of behavior could be made by the same method. The adoption of children from "inferior" homes by persons living in "superior" homes provided a crude experimental situation. For some of these children, the "IQ" was known before adoption. After a period in the new
(179) the IQ was again obtained, and the changes compared with the average change in other children. For another group the IQs were compared with own siblings and with foster siblings, for own parents with foster parents, and so on. This was, in effect, an experimental situation, in which both nature and nurture were allowed to vary and the numerical changes in IQ associated with such variation indicated. The very crude measures of inferiority and superiority of environment tended to invalidate the results, but the method has further possibilities in the field of education and criminology.
Similarly, Healy and Bronner and their associates in Boston have studied the changes in behavior (cessation from delinquency) of a group of fifty juvenile offenders after placement in foster homes. These changes are compared with those occurring in delinquents given other forms of treatment. The experimental inadequacy lies in the factor of the selection of the delinquents (although Healy claims to have selected the less "promising" delinquents) and in the inability to define and measure the environmental factors producing the change. These two studies, in their defects as well as their positive value, point to the great importance of fundamental research which will lead to the further application of this method.
Burgess and Shaw have made regional surveys in Chicago disclosing an extraordinarily high rate of boy delinquency in the slum regions in comparison with the residential districts. Dividing the city into regions and following radii from the business district toward the suburbs and studying the delinquency in the boy population between eleven and seventeen years, they found 443 delinquents per 1,000 in the first mile unit, 58 in the second, 27 in the third, 4 in the fifth, and none in either the sixth or seventh. In the first two quarter-mile units
( 180) of the central business district, over half the boys were brought into the juvenile court in an 18-month period.
Up to this point, however, this study serves only as a partial definition of the problem and as a preparation for a further approach. We have enough to form some hypotheses. We have certain regions characterized by an extraordinarily high delinquency rate, and at the same time there are regions in Chicago (not cemeteries, as Park has remarked) where there is no crime and no divorce. Unless an extremely large amount of bad heredity has been accumulated in the regions of high delinquency the explanation must be sought in the particular life-conditions in those regions.
It is already known that gang life is strongly developed in the regions of high delinquency, and that the delinquencies are largely group delinquencies. Shaw studied the cases of all boys brought before the juvenile court for stealing during a certain period and found that in 90 per cent of the cases two or more boys participated. One boy, in fact, laughed when the judge sentenced him to three months in Pontiac. He had been planning for this, since a sentence of this kind was a condition of full membership in his gang.
Twenty years ago, five thousand members of a Russian religious sect called the Molokans settled in Los Angeles. They resembled the Quakers somewhat in doctrine. They were all good people, and the old ones remained good. The children were good during the first years but have become progressively bad until at present about 90 per cent between the ages of eleven and eighteen have been before the juvenile court. The parents have become absurd and impossible to the children; the region has become a slum with a Mexican and oriental quota of population. The freedom of American children, the movies, etc., have had their influence.
( 181)
I have presented these examples as research problems in the social process. The fact-finding surveys have disclosed the necessity of taking further steps to discover the causal relations between deviate behavior and given urban regions. The determination of causal relationships is preliminary to the introduction of purposive changes (reforms) in the social process, as it is in the material world. I will return to these examples later.
The mathematician, Ροincaré, has thus described the basic procedure of analysis and of classification as approached by the natural sciences:
The most interesting facts are those which can be used several times, those which have a chance of recurring. We have been fortunate enough to be born in a world where there are such facts. Suppose that instead of eighty chemical elements we had eighty million, and that they were not some common and others rare but uniformly distributed. Then each time we picked up a new pebble there would be a strong probability that it was composed of some unknown substance. Nothing that we knew about other pebbles would tell us anything about it. [On the basis of likeness, we are able to form rules.] As soon as the rule is well established, as soon as it is no longer in doubt, the facts that are in conformity with it lose their interest. We cease to look for resemblances and apply ourselves before all else to differences, and of these differences we select first those that are most accentuated, not only because they are the most striking but because they will be the most instructive.[2]
In the social sciences the situation is not essentially different from that in the natural sciences. The main difficulty at present is not that our behavior data are beyond the application of scientific method but that so few elements have yet been isolated, and that the experimental factors are producing a process of constant change
( 182) in the materials we are studying. At any given moment, however, a set of rules (codes or standards) exists, and the deviations from these rules as represented by, let us say, the commission of crime are the material for our immediate study. The isolation of various behavior and experiential elements in this group, and their comparison with the recurrences of these elements in the non-deviating population is the further problem. The fact that our knowledge must of necessity be very meager until we have further fundamental research should not, of itself, be discouraging. It is, indeed, now admitted that even the physicist and chemist have a limited appreciation of their facts and that they are obliged to proceed (with considerable success) as though what they do not know does not exist.
In a good experiment in physics or chemistry, the influence of a given factor is measured by excluding all interfering factors. The change in the original material with the introduction of a specific factor can then be measured. Repetition of the experiment should give the same results, subject only to an experimental error. In the social field, if a factor has been discovered to be strongly associated with (for example) crime, in a given complex environment, its influence as a causative factor can be inferred only by excluding it in a situation in which all other factors are kept the same as in the original situation. But in experiments dealing with humans (or even animals and plants) , interfering stimuli cannot be excluded, influence cannot be directly measured, and inferences as to causality become much less certain. Direct experimentation is here never clear-cut. So many other influences are brought to bear besides the one which it is intended to measure, that only by a widespread statistical comparison of various situations can any adequate inferences emerge. These inferences will never have the
( 183) certainty of "laws"; they will always be in terms of probability. The better the experiment, the less dependent are the inferences on statistical manipulation. The impossibility of carrying on a strict experimentation in the social sciences is due also to our present inability to measure (or even adequately to recognize) the complexities of any given social situation or environment, and this renders impossible any equalizing of factors in two situations.
The inadequacy of research techniques in the social field may be illustrated by the attempts of criminologists to determine "criminal types." These studies have always assumed a marked differentiation of the criminal in some one respect from the rest of mankind. Thus, we have had theories of the criminal type as representing physical anomaly; all criminals possess these anomalies (exceptions are occasionally admitted) and mankind generally does not. Persons possessing these anomalies who have not committed crimes are "potential criminals," who will, presumably, commit the next series of crimes. We have had similar theories representing the criminal as the mentally abnormal type; for example, criminals are feebleminded, and the non-criminal feeble-minded are potential criminals. Exceptions are rarely allowed, but it has been conceded that "There remain a few children of normal and superior intelligence whose delinquency must be accounted for in some other way."[3] Finally, we have theories asserting the typical criminal to be emotionally disordered (psychopathic) .
All these attempts to define the criminal type assume some sharp differentiation of a group of mankind in their inherited tendencies or early conditioning, and assume further that the correlation between this sharply differ-
( 184) -entiated characteristic and the commission of crime is practically perfect. But when empirical checks of these assumptions have been made, the correlations were destroyed. Types have always seemed most clear-cut where only the deviating group has been studied, that is, where knowledge of the distribution of the typological characteristic among the general population is lacking. The tendency to idealize the general population where data do not exist has been observed time and again. It is necessary to mention only the experience with regard to the testing of the intelligence of the draft army, where almost half the army would have classified as feebleminded had the same criteria previously applied to criminals been used. And when the same criteria were applied to draft army and criminals, no feeble-minded type emerged in the latter group. This has been the fate of all theories which have attempted to define a criminal type. A factor, the incidence of which in the general population is assumed to be slight, has been found to be preponderant among a group of criminals. It is, therefore, assumed to define a type generally or specifically related to criminality (that is, either the criminal type, irrespective of crime, or a particular type, such as the murderer). As data are accumulated regarding the incidence of this trait generally, it is found to be present in various groups of the non-criminal population. In other words, it has not been found that any trait or characteristic is the exclusive attribute of the criminal; he does not exist as a pure type.
These theories have, however, often contained a significant element. A correlation will be found to exist between a given attribute and criminal behavior, e. g., criminal groups will be found to have somewhat disproportionate numbers of persons of low-grade intelligence as compared with groups of the general population. The
( 185) theory of type will not hold, but a factor of some etiological importance may emerge.
From concerning ourselves with a single factor, we pass to a consideration of a multiplicity of factors which may be involved, and the isolation of these factors from each other and the study of their inter-relationship become problems of fundamental importance. The method becomes that of multiple rather than single classification. Each variable must be considered in terms of other variables. The perspective must constantly be shifted from one factor of significance to other factors involved. In this way an estimate of the strength of a single factor may be secured, as well as the strength of several concomitant factors. The realistic approach to the criminal is in terms of concomitance of various factors (physical, mental, cultural) and their inter-relationship as compared with those of non-criminal groups. It is not a question of "all or none" of a given attribute being possessed by a criminal group and thus differentiating a type. It is rather a question of "how much" and "in what other relationships" this attribute exists in various groups of criminals as compared with various other groups.
I may suggest that research into behavior as related to the social process may take three general forms:
(1) Detailed accounts of the processes involved and the changes in behavior and attitudes occurring in radical situational changes for individuals and groups of individuals. These accounts would be in the nature of case histories and documentary analyses of the situations produced in the ordinary course of events by social change, by certain empirical therapeutic measures, etc. Immigration is one of the most satisfactory situations of the kind produced by or in society, as was noticed in the case of the Molokan colony in Los Angeles. The movement of populations from the country to the city, the slum
( 186) areas in the city, the geographical culture areas, the varying culture configurations and behavior patterns of races and nationalities, are other examples. Empirical therapeutic measures are represented by foster-home placements, the experiments of Dr. Esther L. Richards [4] in moving psychopathic children from one family situation to another until adjustment was made, and those of Dr. Harry Stack Sullivan in promoting the association of psychopaths in groups among themselves. Detailed life histories of individuals reveal changed behavior as associated with situational change. These studies and documents have value both as focussing upon the totality of the processes involved in these changes (or rather the resultants of these processes) giving, so to speak, a behavior perspective, and as indicating what factors should be isolated for more careful investigation.
(2) The study and evolution of environment. The inadequacy of the measurement of environmental influences has been apparent in all studies which have purported to show the effects of change of environment. Most of these studies can claim to have shown only that change in behavior was associated with a change in environment or situation. No adequate definition or measurement of the factors present in the new situations and absent in the old has been made. The sociologists, psychiatrists, and social workers have all attempted to indicate the factors associated with the change, but too of ten the determinations have been rationalizations. The attempts to quantify environment have been generally absurd. The Whittier scale is a composite of ratings of a home on the basis of necessities, neatness, size, "parental conditions" and parental supervision. The Minnesota scale consists of a detailed elaboration of material equip-
( 187) -ment with an amazing system of weighting, presumably on the basis of the degree of "culture" indicated by the possession of certain articles (alarm clock rated 1, mantel clock 2, grandfather's clock 3, etc.). Neither of these, nor any known attempts at composites, can be said to give any adequate picture of the environmental processes. Even those factors which can be readily investigated have received little attention, for example, the morphology of the family (that is, its composition with regard to age, sex, maturity, occupational and relationship range), income and expenditure, housing, and so on. Much record is needed simply to give a definition of environment in direct, quantitative terms.
(3) The development of a more accurate technique in observing and recording. The inadequacy of behavior recording is perhaps even more obvious. The recent development of observational techniques in the study of the social behavior of young children is throwing light upon the pitfalls in the way of reliable behavior records. The definition of the unit of behavior to be observed has been found to be a problem demanding much careful experimentation, in order to produce adequate control of the observer.
The work done by Dorothy Swaine Thomas [5] and her associates at Yale and Columbia represents a beginning in this type of research. They are developing observational studies in several fields involving social interaction. They are also checking the observability of various units of behavior by repeated observations in the talking moving pictures. Their results indicate the types of units that can be evolved for accurate recording (physical contacts, verbal contacts, contacts with materials, etc.) in very small time intervals (five seconds) . Factors making for
( 188) unreliability in observational recording are being analyzed in detail. This work is laying a foundation essential for correlations between behavior elements and other factors in personality and environment, for until we are in a position to record behavior accurately, we cannot give credence to such correlations, however accurately these other factors may have been determined.
I am not suggesting that behavior can be adequately observed and recorded by the observational method or by statistical procedure. It appears, in fact, that the behavior document (case study, life record, psychoanalytic confession) representing a continuity of experience in life situations is the most illuminating procedure available. In a good record of this kind we are able to view the behavior reactions in the various situations, the emergence of personality traits, the determination of concrete acts, and the formation of life policies and their evolution.
There are undoubtedly insuperable difficulties in the. way of perfecting the life record on the side of objectivity and reliability. It is introspective, the memory is notoriously treacherous, observation is defective, phantasy, fabrication and bias play large rôles. Court testimony is the best example of the difficulties encountered in securing a complete and objective narrative of past events. But this form of data is capable of improvement and systematization, and will have valuable applications when considerable numbers of life histories adequately elaborated are employed in a comparative way in order to determine the varieties of the schematization of life in varieties of situations. And it must be recognized that even the most highly subjective record has a value for behavior analysis and interpretation. A document, for example, prepared by one compensating for a feeling of inferiority or elaborating a delusion of persecution is
( 189) as far as possible from objective reality, but the subject's view of the situation, how he regards it, may be the most important element for interpretation. For his immediate behavior is closely related to his definition of the situation, which may be in terms of objective reality or in terms of subjective appreciation—"as if" it were so. Very often it is the wide discrepancy between the situation as it seems to others and the situation as it seems to the individual that brings about the overt behavior difficulty. A paranoic person, at present in one of the New York institutions, has killed several persons who had the unfortunate habit of talking to themselves on the street. From the movement of their lips he imagined that they were calling him vile names, and he behaved as if this were true. If men define those situations as real, they are real in their consequences. The total situation will always contain more or less subjective factors, and the behavior reaction can be studied only in connection with the whole context, that is, the situation as it exists in verifiable, objective terms, and as it has seemed to exist in terms of the interested person.
Behavior analysis and interpretation will also be furthered through the development of the longitudinal approach to the life history. It is important not only to examine many types of individuals with regard to their experiences at various past periods of life in different situations, but it is important also to follow through groups of individuals into the future, getting a continuous record of experiences as they occur.
It is also highly important for us to realize that we do not as a matter of fact lead our lives, make our decisions, and reach our goals in everyday life either statistically or scientifically. We live by inference. I am, let us say, your guest. You do not know, you cannot determine scientifically, that I will not steal your money or your
( 190) spoons. But inferentially I will not, and inferentially you have me as guest.
What is needed is a continuous and detailed preparation and study of life histories along with the available statistical studies, to be used as a basis for the inferences drawn. And these inferences in turn must be continually subjected to further statistical analysis as it becomes possible to transmute more factors into quantitative form. The case study method and the "natural history" method must not only precede the more scientifically acceptable method in order to produce realistic hypotheses and indicate what units should be defined and isolated; they must also be used as a general background of reference to the more limited statistical findings, which lead, as we have indicated, to inferences which must be constantly checked for validity against the large mass of material not yet analyzable.
Returning now to the examples of regional surveys, which disclosed a relation between behavior and specific urban areas, in order to understand the causal relationships it would be necessary to study the social influence of a given area of high delinquency on the juvenile population. And in order to do this it would be necessary (1) to make studies of the institutions and agencies exercising influence—home and family, school, church, boys' and girls' clubs, gangs, recreation centers, kind of work, commercialized pleasures, etc.; (2) to use a control group of non-delinquent boys and girls equal to the total number of delinquent boys and girls in the same region; (3) to equalize the factors in the two groups so as to make the data comparable and capable of quantification, comparing the individuals of the two groups, for example, with reference to intelligence, psychoneurotic responses, abnormal marital relation of parents (death, divorce, separation), nationality of parents, occupation of parents,
( 191) educational background (including years in school and grade finished, kind of school attended, attendance in school, age at leaving school), occupational history, sex history, etc., and (4) to prepare detailed case histories and life histories of delinquents and non-delinquents as a means of judging the influence of the existing institutions and agencies.
Similar studies should then be made in various other selected regions of the same city and eventually in different cities. The urban regions and the different cities as wholes present very different cultural milieus. There is a different distribution and emphasis of influences. Rochester, for example, is strong in respect to schools and the visiting teacher movement, and weak on the side of the juvenile court, while Boston is particularly strong on the side of the juvenile court. Healy and Bronner, in their attempt to measure their successes and failures with delinquent children in Boston and Chicago, in each of which they had carried on work for ten years, found enormous differences. In Chicago the failures were 50 per cent, in Boston only 21 per cent.
The systematic comparison of regions and cultures would eventually be important in forming hypotheses and policies. While it will be possible and, in some cases, necessary for these researches to go on separately, it is desirable that all the problems of crime causation and prevention be viewed and studied together and simultaneously in given situations, regions, and populations; that the same individuals be involved from all the standpoints, and that different local areas be studied by the same method and compared.
Eventually programs of the same kind should be carried out among selected racial and national groups, for example, the Italians, the Scandinavians, the Germans, the Russians, the Japanese, the Chinese, etc., with refer-
( 192) -ence to determining the relation between behavior and social structure comparatively. Studies of this kind would be particularly rich in hypothesis-forming materials.
If there were time, I should like to make some concrete suggestions as to the method of approach in determining the social influence of certain concrete factors in the total situation as they are related to behavior, especially to deviate behavior. I have in mind such things as population factors, family organization and disorganization, economic factors, alcoholism and drug addiction, the newspaper and crime literature, and the motion picture.
I will mention, however, another item that seems to me of importance. It appears that the present academic and often rationalistic approach to problems relating to the social process is not of a type best adapted to understanding and controlling the social process, and that a more adequate type of approach has been developed by the great industrial organizations as, for example, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company and the General Electric Company. In these organizations problems are set by the central investigations, but "pure" research is often far behind the immediate needs of these problems. Therefore, chemists, physicists, and other specialists are assigned laboratory work in their own fields, with no immediate practical ends, but with the general purpose of speeding up the development of particular aspects of the field. If an institution were similarly organized for the study and control of behavior, it would naturally be limited in the immediate research set-up to those elements of behavior which have already been isolated by the separate disciplines. And it would be further limited by the imperfect methods of measurement existing in these separate disciplines. As a matter of immediate procedure, the best available techniques in the psychological, anthropometric, psychiatric, bio-
( 193) -chemical, economic, and social-behavior fields should be applied with equal care to the study of individuals and groups deviating in given ways from given norms. Preliminary explorations in which some single typological or other factor may seem worth investigating could be carried out on a more limited scale, for purposes of checking on possible factors that should be later incorporated in the larger studies.
It is obvious that the research program of an institution would be retarded by the slow development of techniques in each of the separate disciplines upon which it must draw. It would, therefore, be essential to turn the attention of investigators in this field to the investigation of elements which the institution considered important. The originating and co-ordinating agency would be the institution itself. Much of the wasted effort in typological studies in criminology has been due to the fact that an investigator who is familiar with his own technique applies it to a group of criminals, without any knowledge of criminal behavior or criminology. The investigators from the several fields should be essentially technicians who are able to apply their existing techniques in directions suggested by the staff of the institution and develop new techniques for application in these directions. For example, the institution might direct the attention of economists to problems of measuring labor stability and encourage specific development in psychology, physiology, sociology, and the other social sciences which would presumably prove of value to the eventual relation of elements in the field of criminal behavior.
It has been evident to you that in attempting to outline an approach to the examination of the social process I have had in mind the deviate behavior in anti-social lines. I have done this for the sake of concreteness. But
(
194) there is a more comprehensive and normal type of behavior reaction
going on every day before our eyes which has to do with the participation of the
masses of the population, often whole populations, in common sentiments and
actions. It is represented by fashions of dress, mob action, war hysteria, the
gang spirit, Mafia, omerta, Fascism, popularity of this or that cigarette or
tooth paste, the quick fame and infamy of political personalities. It uses
language—spoken, written, and gesture. It is emotional, imitative, largely
irrational and unconscious, weighted with symbols, and sometimes outrageous. It
is capable of manipulation and propagation by leading personalities and the
public print. Its results are commonly and publicly accepted definitions of
situations. Its historical residuum constitutes the distinctive character of
races, nationalities, and communities. In this region lies the psychology of the
evolution of public opinion and of social norms. I am ready to believe that this
is the social process which you would have chosen to have presented here at this
time. But we are not prepared at present to do much more than rationalize about
this larger social process. It would be necessary to break it up into special
aspects, as I have attempted to indicate, and to make a long-time job of it.
This would be possible if there were a redistribution of attention and money
which would place behavior research on something like a parity with research in
the biological and physical fields.[6]
