SCIENCE AND BEHAVIOR THERAPY: A SURVEY OF RESEARCH IN THE 1970s PHILIP C. KENDALL*and S. PLOUS Department of Psychology, Elliott Hall. 75 E. River Road, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. MN 55455, U.S.A. and THOMAS R. KRATOCHWILL Department of Psychology, University of Arizona Tucson, Ai! 85721, U.S.A. (Rrceit*ed 28 April 1981) zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUT Sum m a ry- A representative sample of a decade of contributors to the journals Behavior Tfierapv, Eehu~~iou~ Re~eur~h and Tlterap~. fournui of Applied ~ehai~iar Anai_ysis and the Journal of Behuv- ior Therupy und ~x~~~jrne~ra~ Psychiurry was asked to report on then motivations for conducting studies that had been published in that journal. Results indicated that the primary motivation of behavioral researchers was to build on prior research through gathering and analysis of data to illuminate applied-clinical issues and validate treatment procedures. Few researchers reported consultation arrangements or efforts to replicate as their motivation for research. Most respon- dents described the training model in which they had received their doctoral education as oriented toward a scientist-practitioner approach rather than one that focused primarily on research. therapy or assessment training. Most respondents noted that their philosophy of behav- ior therapy at the time of the study in question to be applied behavior analysis or social-learning theory with far less being affiliated with a neobehavioristic mediational S-R model or cognitive behavior modification. These results are discussed within the context of the relevance of clinical research in behavior therapy and professional psychology. 1NTRODUCTION Behavior therapy is in the midst of a struggle to find its identity and it is becoming increasingly difficult to locate one characteristic that defines this approach (Kazdin, 1979). Indeed, behavior therapy has several variations, including applied behavior analy- sis. cognitive behavior modification, social-learning theory and mediational S-R approaches (Kazdin and Wilson, 1978). A consistent source of strength for behavior therapists, especially in times of self-doubt, has been the basic acceptance of empirical science as the method for examining psychological phenomena. This empirical-clinical method has typically been described as central to behavior therapy (e.g., Goldfried and Davison, 1976). Yet, even this assumption has had some fictional components (Kazdin, 1979). Behavior therapy has not been the only area of psychotherapy to embrace scien- tific tenets. Behavior therapy has also had its share of problems in the research arena. Not all techniques have empirical support and many procedures have been ‘tested’ through case-study techniques. Recent surveys have also unveiled discrepancies between behavior therapy as rep- resented in research and behavior therapy as reportedly practiced (Ford and Kendall, 1979a: Swan and MacDonald. 1978). These data led Ford and Kendall (1979b), in their commentary on behavior therapists’ professional behaviors. to underscore the gap between therapy. research and practice. Yet, having recognized a gap, it becomes essen- tial to strive to understand more about these phenomena. The present survey was designed to study some of these issues in behavior therapy by addressing the reasons for clinical research through a focus on the characteristics of the behavioral researcher and the motivations for his/her involvement in research. * To whom all reprint requests should be addressed 517