Toward the globalization of behavior analysis

Globalization could facilitate the long-term growth of behavior analysis, and although progress has been made, much yet needs to be done. Given the scarcity of resources, it is suggested that we draw from successes in the development of behavior analysis and establish behavioral programs around the world that embrace research, education, and practice as a focus of systematic globalization efforts. The strategy would require the implementation of cultural contingencies that support initiation and long-term program expansion. For program initiation, contingencies are needed to place pioneer behavior analysts in university units that would be unlikely to start a behavioral program otherwise. The task of these pioneers would be to build a critical mass that would multiply behavior-analytic repertoires, obtain research funding, conduct publishable research, and establish applied settings. For long-term program development, the field should expand internationally as it continues building the infrastructure needed to accelerate the demand for behavioral programs in higher education, scholarly work in behavior analysis, behavior analysts in existing jobs, and behavioral technology in the market place.     

Positive behavior support: Expanding the application of applied behavior analysis

Positive behavior support (PBS) is an approach to providing services to individuals who exhibit challenging behavior. Since its inception in the early 1990s, PBS has received increasing attention from the behavior-analytic community. Some behavior analysts have embraced this approach, but others have voiced questions and concerns. In this paper we describe the framework of PBS and show that it is consistent with the tenets of behavior analysis. Also, we illustrate how the framework of PBS might be used to guide practitioners and researchers in the field of applied behavior analysis. We hope to demonstrate that PBS offers useful suggestions regarding how applied behavior analysts can design and evaluate effective programs for people with developmental disabilities or behavioral challenges.     

BEHAVIORISM: PART OF THE PROBLEM OR PART OF THE SOLUTION?1

The form frequently taken by behavior-modification programs is analyzed in terms of the parent science, Behaviorism. Whereas Behaviorism assumes that behavior is the result of contingencies, and that lasting behavior change involves changing the contingencies that give rise to and support the behavior, most behavior-modification programs merely arrange special contingencies in a special environment to eliminate the “problem” behavior. Even when the problem behavior is as widespread as alcoholism and crime, behavior modifiers focus on “fixing” the alcoholic and the criminal, not on changing the societal contingencies that prevail outside the therapeutic environment and continue to produce alcoholics and criminals. The contingencies that shape this method of dealing with behavioral problems are also analyzed, and this analysis leads to a criticism of the current social structure as a behavior control system. Although applied behaviorists have frequently focused on fixing individuals, the science of Behaviorism provides the means to analyze the structures, the system, and the forms of societal control that produce the “problems”.     

Three Laws of Behavior Genetics and What They Mean

Behavior genetics has demonstrated that genetic variance is an important component of variation for all behavioral outcomes, but variation among families is not. These results have led some critics of behavior genetics to conclude that heritability is so ubiquitous as to have few consequences for scientific understanding of development, while some behavior genetic partisans have concluded that family environment is not an important cause of developmental outcomes. Both views are incorrect. Genotype is in fact a more systematic source of variability than environment, but for reasons that are methodological rather than substantive. Development is fundamentally nonlinear, interactive, and difficult to control experimentally. Twin studies offer a useful methodological shortcut, but do not show that genes are more fundamental than environments.     

Countercontrol in behavior analysis

Countercontrol is a functional class of behavior that is part of Skinner's analysis of social behavior. Countercontrol refers to behavioral episodes comprised of socially mediated aversive controlling conditions and escape or avoidance responses that do not reinforce, and perhaps even punish, controllers' responses. This paper suggests that neglect of countercontrol in modern behavior analysis is unfortunate because the concept applies to interpersonal and social relations the fundamental operant principle that human behavior is both controlled and controlling-humans are not passive and inflexible. Countercontrol is addressed here in terms of conceptual status, contemporary developments in behavior analysis, its importance in a behavior-analytic approach to freedom and cultural design, applications, and research. The main conclusion is that Skinner's formulation of counter-control is scientifically supported and worthy of increased prominence in behavior analysis.     

AVERSIVE CONTROL: A SEPARATE DOMAIN?

Traditionally, aversive control has been viewed as a separate domain within behavior theory. Sometimes this separateness has been based upon a distinction between reinforcement and punishment, and sometimes upon a distinction between positive and negative reinforcement. The latter is regarded here as the more compelling basis, due to some inherent procedural asymmetries. An approach to the interpretation of negative reinforcement is presented, with indication of types of experiments that support it and that also point to promising directions for further work. However, most of the interpretive issues that arise here are relevant to positively reinforced behavior as well. These include: possible reformulation of the operant/respondent distinction; the place of emotional concepts in behavior analysis; the need for simultaneous, complementary analysis on differing time scales; the understanding of behavioral situations with rewarding or aversive properties that depend as much upon the contingencies that the situations involve as upon the primary rewarding or aversive stimuli that they include. Thus, an adequate understanding of this domain, which has been traditionally viewed as distinct, has implications for all domains of behavior-analytic theory.     

Development and function of consequence classes in operant behavior

The term class has been discussed extensively in the behavioral literature for groups of stimuli or responses that share a common function. In contrast, the concept of consequence class, including its definition, its formation, and other relevant characteristics, has not been the topic of much attention in the literature. Issues pertaining to consequence classes are discussed to provide a more thorough analysis of the units of operant and discriminated operant functional relations. The concept of class for consequences provides a means to integrate data and theory from the behavior-analytic literature.     

Behavioral and motivational effects of immune-system activation

Immune-system activity induces changes in animal behavior such as decreased food intake, decreased exploratory behavior, increased sleep, and impaired cognitive functioning. These changes are mediated by proinflammatory cytokines, and the administration of cytokines produces the same profile of behavior change as do infection and inflammation. Results demonstrating differential effects of immune-system activation depending on environmental contingencies and physiological states support the hypothesis that the behavioral effects of immune activity may be mediated by motivation. In this article, the author outlines the behavioral changes induced by immune-system activation and discusses evidence for a motivational analysis of immune-induced behavior change and the potential involvement of motivation in human sickness behavior.     

A behavior-analytic critique of Bandura's self-efficacy theory

A behavior-analytic critique of self-efficacy theory is presented. Self-efficacy theory asserts that efficacy expectations determine approach behavior and physiological arousal of phobics as well as numerous other clinically important behaviors. Evidence which is purported to support this assertion is reviewed. The evidence consists of correlations between self-efficacy ratings and other behaviors. Such response-response relationships do not unequivocally establish that one response causes another. A behavior-analytic alternative to self-efficacy theory explains these relationships in terms of environmental events. Correlations between self-efficacy rating behavior and other behavior may be due to the contingencies of reinforcement that establish a correspondence between such verbal predictions and the behavior to which they refer. Such a behavior-analytic account does not deny any of the empirical relationships presented in support of self-efficacy theory, but it points to environmental variables that could account for those relationships and that could be manipulated in the interest of developing more effective treatment procedures.     

Interventions for inappropriate sexual behavior in individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A brief review

Although prevalence rates vary, 6% to 28% of individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities (IDDs) engage in inappropriate sexual behavior (ISB), ranging from public masturbation to sexually aggressive behavior. Along with increased risk for contacting the criminal justice system, people with IDDs who display ISB may encounter negative social consequences, restricted community access and barriers to independence, and a variety of counter-therapeutic outcomes. The purpose of the present review is to highlight recent, efficacious behavior-analytic treatments for ISB in individuals with IDDs. Ethical considerations and areas for future research will be discussed.     

B. F. Skinner's Science and Human Behavior: its antecedents and its consequences

Skinner's Science and Human Behavior marked a transition from a treatment of behavior that took physics as its reference science to one that emphasized behavior as a fundamental part of the subject matter of biology. The book includes what may be Skinner's earliest statement about the similarity of operant selection to Darwinian natural selection in phylogeny. Other major topics discussed in the book included multiple causation, private events, the self, and social contingencies. Among the important antecedents were Skinner's own Behavior of Organisms and Keller & Schoenfeld's Pincinples of Psychology. Current developments in education, behavioral economics, and some behavior therapies can be attributed at least in part to Skinner's seminal work. The effective behavioral analysis of governmental and religious systems will probably depend on elaborations of our understanding of verbal behavior.     

An architect of the golden years

William H. Morse has played a major role in the experimental analysis of behavior. His view of operant behavior as the outcome of differential reinforcement provides an invaluable lesson in scientific research and theory. He studied schedules of reinforcement to generate an in-depth analysis of the complex interactions existing when contingencies exert their control over behavior. He has been instrumental in showing how behavior is determined by the dynamic interaction of factors brought into play by the imposition of any schedule, and he has a remarkably intuitive understanding of the nature of these determining variables. Some of these causal events are imposed directly by the schedule, but others arise in a more indirect manner through necessary constraints. In Morse's view, schedules can be more fundamental in determining behavior than are the scheduled events themselves. Behavior is the shaped product of an organism's history in combination with present environmental conditions. His impact deserves to be more than historical: A study of his work continues to reward the reader with exciting insights into the nature of behavioral control.     

Relational operants: processes and implications: a response to Palmer's review of Relational Frame Theory

Palmer has recently criticized Relational Frame Theory (RFT) on the grounds that it has developed data in search of a principle. In this reply, we show that he has done so by attacking fundamental concepts within behavior analysis itself, including the functional nature of an operant and contingencies of reinforcement as a behavioral process. His claim that RFT appeals to new behavioral principles to explain the development of relational operants is shown to be incorrect: As with any operant, RFT appeals to a history of contacted consistencies in contingencies across multiple ex-emplars to explain them. New principles only emerge later as a logically necessary extension of such operants if they exist--a view that Palmer failed to address or appreciate. Palmer's desire to see the use of methods other than matching-to-sample is proper but already largely satisfied in the empirical literature on RFT. We show Palmer's defense of Skinner's definition of verbal behavior to be illogical and unresponsive to the empirical challenge behavior analysis faces. Palmer's alternative common sense mediational associationistic account is another in more than a century of such accounts, all of which have failed empirically. At its root, Palmer's criticism is based on a mechanistic philosophy that is hostile to a traditional functional behavior analytic approach.     

Toward a technology of generalization: The identification of natural contingencies of reinforcement

Applied behavior analysts have directed a growing effort towards the development of a technology for behavioral generalization and maintenance over the past decade. Among the list of potential generalization promoters thought to exist is the natural contingency of social reinforcement (i.e., a behavioral trap) for new behavior in its untrained form or setting, or over time. Although past researchers have noted a need to program for the generalization and maintenance of behavior change, the current understanding of behavioral traps precludes the use of these contingencies to support behavioral changes when interventions are not in operation. This article describes five forms of evidence useful for the identification and analysis of natural contingencies of reinforcement. Examples from the applied research literature are provided to illustrate the kinds of studies that would greatly enhance our knowledge of behavioral traps and improve our ability to understand and program the generalization of trained behaviors across diverse forms and settings, and over time.     

Variability discrimination in humans and animals: implications for adaptive action

Both humans and animals live in a rich world of events. Some events repeat themselves, whereas others constantly change. The authors propose that discriminating this stability, sameness, and uniformity from change, differentness, and diversity is fundamental to adaptive action. Evidence from many areas of behavioral science indicates that the discrimination of and preference for stimulus variability affects both human and animal action. Recent comparative research with humans and animals illustrates a promising approach to the study of these issues. Discovering and understanding the behavioral and neural processes related to stimulus variability and its consequences for behavior offer distinctive challenges and important new opportunities for psychologists and neuroscientists.     

The aesthetics of behavioral arrangements

With their origins in scientific validation, behavior-analytic applications have understandably been developed with an engineering rather than a crafting orientation. Nevertheless, traditions of craftsmanship can be instructive for devising aesthetically pleasing arrangements-arrangements that people will try, and having tried, will choose to continue living with. Pye (1968) provides suggestions for this, particularly through his distinctions between workmanship of risk versus workmanship of certainty, and the mating of functional precision with effective or otherwise pleasing variability. Close examination of woodworking tools as well as antique machines offers instructive analogues that show, for instance, that misplaced precision can be dysfunctional when precision is not essential to a design. Variability should be allowed or even encouraged. Thus, in the design of behavioral contingencies as well as of practical or purely aesthetic objects, "precise versus variable" is not necessarily a distinction between good and bad. More generally, behavior analysts would do well to look beyond their technical experience for ways to improve the aesthetics of contingency design while continuing to understand the resulting innovations in relation to behavior-analytic principles.     

The personal life of the behavior analyst

The human species faces crises of critical proportions. Excessive population, global warming, and the anticipated descent from peak fossil-fuel extraction promise to change our future in far-reaching ways. Operant conditioning prepares the individual for a world similar to the selecting past, but our world is changing more rapidly than our adaptation. As individuals, we cannot make substantial changes in the world at large because we do not control enough reinforcers, but we can turn to the sources of our personal behavior and manipulate them. We will need help. Better organized social networks and the self-management techniques they support can promote immediate changes in consumption at home, work, and moving about in our personal worlds. Surprisingly, consuming less can lead to more satisfying and happier lives, but a better understanding of reinforcement contingencies is necessary. We can recover the strengthening effects of personal daily accomplishments that are eroded when conditioned generalized reinforcers intervene. When we get our own personal lives in order we can reduce our carbon footprints, restore the connections between our behavior and its strengthening effects, and become models worthy of imitation.     

The response-stimulus contingency and reinforcement learning as a context for considering two non-behavior-analytic views of contingency learning

This paper introduces a special section on the contingency. Bower and Watson were invited to present their views of contingency learning in human infants from outside the context of behavior analysis, and Cigales, Marr, and Lattal and Shahan provided commentaries that point out some of the more interesting and controversial aspects of those views from a behavior-analytic perspective. The debate turns on how to conceptualize the response-stimulus contingency of operant learning. The present paper introduces the contingency concept and contingency detection by subjects, as well as research practices in behavior analysis, in a context in which the dependency between infant responding and the presentation of environmental consequences may be disrupted through procedures in which ordinarily consequent events occur before the response or in its absence. These points can relate to and serve as an introduction to the Bower and Watson papers on infant contingency learning as well as to the three commentaries that follow.