It is understandable that the clinical behaviorists, when criticized by non-behavioral
colleagues for their "simplistic" and "mentalistic" approach to complex human phenomena,
yearn to retreat into an environment surrounded by individuals sharing their world view.
However, because of recent developments in the health-care system, the development of
professional schools, and the lack of cross-fertilization associated with professional
isolation. I question the wisdom of such strivings.

Are clinical psychology and clinical behaviorism incompatible? Most clinical Ph.D.
programs have adopted a scientist-practitioner model and seek to produce well-rounded
clinical psychologists who fulfill three interrelated roles. Scientist-practitioners are
expected (1) to be familiar with the latest research and use validated techniques in their
clinical practice, (2) to scientifically evaluate the effectiveness of their clinical activities,
and (3) to contribute to science by developing novel techniques and publishing their
findings.

Clinical behaviorists are a special kind of scientist-practioner. They are committed to a
behavioristic world view, are well-versed in behavioral principles and techniques, and
apply them to clinically relevant problems for which adults typically seek psychological
assistance (e.g., depression, anxiety, or interpersonal difficulties). Clinical behaviorists
differ from applied behavior analysts in that the latter work with developmentally disabled
persons or children, which allows them direct access to the relevant contingencies in their
clients' environment. The former, in contrast, work with normal adults and typically have
no direct access to the contingencies controlling the their clients' extra-session behavior.
They cannot conduct a true functional analysis. Instead, they listen to verbal reports,
make educated guesses about the presented problem, and rely on instructions or other
forms of verbal and non-verbal behavior, hoping to motivate clients to change their behavior
outside of the therapeutic setting.

Not surprisingly, in practice neither behavioral nor non-behavioral clinical practitioners
have met the lofty goals of their scientist-practitioner training. After graduate school, the
majority of non-academic clinical psychologists, regardless of theoretical persuasion, do
not read academic journals and never produce a single publication in their careers. This
was first shown in the early surveys (e.g., Levy, 1962) and has remained unchanged
almost thirty years later (Norcross et al., 1989).

Should clinical behaviorists leave mainstream psychology departments ? Training our
clinical students in non-APA-accredited behavior analysis programs would be detrimental.
(1) It would severely limit their future professional activities. Most states issue licenses to
practice only to psychologists who completed an APA-accredited graduate program and
clinical internship. Without accredited training and state licensure, clinical behaviorists
could neither enroll in the National Registrar nor get reimbursed for their services by
health insurers and HMOs.

(2) Isolating our students from non-behaviorists would prevent cross- fertilization and
shield them from constructive criticism. Yet, feedback is the quintessence of any scientific
enterprise.

(3) Rather than retreating into our own world, we might ask why we behaviorists are so
unpopular (We are overly confident!), why we are perceived as arrogant (We tend to
make fun of other approaches!), and why our interventions have not become more widely
accepted in the mainstream (We have not proven our superiority with many complex adult
clinical problems).

Conclusion. As clinical behaviorists, we could potentially contribute to unrivaled
improvements in the human condition if we advanced our knowledge of verbal, especially
rule-governed, behavior and human motivation. We really need to expand our horizons
and form alliances with other psychologists rather than promoting isolationist tendencies
that may eventually lead us into extinction.