Abstract
The authors make a reasonable point, that behavior analysis should be concerned with effective behavior in its own right and not only as a replacement for ineffective behavior. But positive psychology is then described as “a science of positive subjective experience, positive individual traits, and positive institutions …” based largely on correlations among self-report inventories; a science which has the goal of identifying traits that function as the explanations of the behavior of interest. An effort is made to justify this move in a nonbehavioral direction by reference to the distinction between positive and negative reinforcement and an exhortation that OBM practitioners emphasize the former. But this rationale is seriously flawed by either a clearly erroneous or a drastically oversimplified understanding of this distinction. Furthermore, all of the more specific recommendations can be easily justified in terms of ordinary behavioral advantages without recourse to the achievement motivation literature or such concepts as self-efficacy.