154 A Psychological Behaviorism Theory of Personality
for item-behavior relationships is that the test measures an
element of a BBR or the verbal labeling of that repertoire. For
example, we would find that a group of people who affirma-
tively answered the item “I am an excellent athlete” would also
display more athletic ability than would a group who answered
negatively. The two behaviors are in the same repertoire. Peo-
ple generally learn to describe their own behavior with some
accuracy (but there are variations in that respect).
It can also be the case that a test, because of how it was
constructed, measures a BBR that isnecessaryfor the learning
of the predicted behavior. Intelligence tests are a prime exam-
ple. Behavioral analysis of IQ test items reveals that many test
whether the child has the language-cognitive elements. Most
of the items, for example, test for the child’s verbal-motor
repertoire that is necessary for following instructions. Others
test the number concept repertoire, the counting and other
arithmetic repertoires, and the verbal-labeling repertoire. The
manner in which items on the WPPSI (Wechsler, 1967) mea-
sure aspects of the sensorimotor repertoire has been described
earlier. Why do such items predict later school performance?
The answer is that the items measure basic behavioral reper-
toires the childneedsto be successful in learning materials
that are later presented in school. So the items correlate with
school performance.
Other tests measure the emotional-motivational BBR. Con-
sider an interest test. Constructing the test involves gathering a
number of items together that are thought to represent a range
of interests that are occupationally relevant. But the important
part involves the standardization procedures. The items are
given to different occupational groups, and those that distin-
guish the groups are retained and organized (keyed). When the
test is used, it can be ascertained whether the individual an-
swers the items in a manner that is like some particular occu-
pational group. What does this mean in the PB analysis? The
answer is that the items measure emotional responses (indi-
cated, e.g., by like-dislike) to different life stimuli. So the indi-
vidual’s test responses reveal life stimuli to which the
individual has positive and negative emotional responses. Re-
member that those life stimuli the individual likes or dislikes
will also serve as positive or negative reinforcers and incen-
tives. Thus, if the individual has emotional responses to life
stimuli that are like people who are successful in some occu-
pation, then the individual should be happy in that same work
situation. Moreover, the individual should be reinforced by
that work and be attracted to it incentively. That means that
other things equal, the individual should work harder in the
job, study relevant material more, and so on. That is why in-
terest tests predict job success.
It is important to bridge the psychological testing–
behaviorism gap, for unifying the two traditions produces
new knowledge. For example, in terms of the present theory
of personality, the various existent psychological tests are
an invaluable source of knowledge for defining the basic
behavioral repertoires. PB’s basic experimental studies, de-
velopmental studies, and behavior therapy studies have
been important avenues of definition. But the manner in
which psychological tests have been constructed means that
their items measure elements of BBRs that constitute as-
pects of personality. The extensive work of behaviorally an-
alyzing the items of psychological tests can be expected to
tell us much about the content of personality (see Staats,
1996). And, as indicated, those analyses will then yield di-
rectives for conducting research on how the BBRs involved
are learned and how they function in producing the individ-
ual’s behavior. We have already trained children to be more
intelligent (Staats & Burns, 1981) by training them in basic
behavioral repertoires. In addition, interest and values (see
Staats, 1996) tests have been shown to measure aspects of
the learned emotional-motivational BBR. Those findings
merely open the way.
Other positive avenues of development emerge from the
conceptual unification of tests and PB theory. For one thing,
the unified theory enables us to understand what tests are.
That should be valuable in constructing tests. The approach
provides an avenue for defining in objective, stipulable
terms just what personality is. That should be valuable in
using tests, namely, that test items—not just total scores—
when analyzed behaviorally, describe the content of person-
ality traits of the individual. This conception of tests,
moreover, says that tests can yield more than prediction;
they can describe the contents of personality traits and thus
the nature of the individual’s BBR being measured. With
study of how people come to learn those personality traits
we will have knowledge on how to avoid doing things that
will give children undesirable traits, while doing things to
give them desirable traits. And behaviorally-analyzed tests
will also give specific information regarding what remedial
treatment needs to do.
Many studies are needed that analyze existing tests in
terms of the behavioral repertoires they assess, as already
demonstrated in PB experiments. With that knowledge tests
could be compared to one another in a way that would make
sense of the field. At present tests are independent entities;
they are not related to each other. Many tests of different as-
pects of personality are actually redundant and share types of
items (e.g., interest, values, and needs tests, on the one hand,
and fears, anxiety, and stress tests, on the other).
The field of testing does not relate itself to the content areas
of psychology or to personality theories. The analysis of tests
in terms of BBRs provides a means for doing so. Studying