An evaluation of resurgence following functional communication training conducted in alternative antecedent contexts via telehealth

Treatments based on differential reinforcement may inadvertently increase the recurrence of problem behavior in the face of challenges because reinforcers for appropriate behavior occur in the same context as problem behavior. The current study evaluated one potential approach to mitigating these problems with differential reinforcement treatments based on behavioral momentum theory. Specifically, appropriate behavior was trained in contexts without a history of reinforcement prior to intervening with problem behavior. Participants were 4 children with autism spectrum disorder. Treatment used telehealth to implement functional communication training (FCT) in three alternative contexts with minimal or no history of reinforcement for problem behavior before initiating FCT in the treatment context. Evaluations of the effects of treatment and tests of resurgence were conducted intermittently during treatment to evaluate maintenance. When FCT treatment was initiated in alternative contexts, initial results were comparable to more typical implementations of FCT. Resurgence was reduced to similar levels during tests of resurgence for all participants when compared to more typical previously published implementations of FCT, but clinically significant reductions in resurgence occurred more quickly in the present study. These findings support training appropriate behavior in an alternative context to mitigate the resurgence of problem behavior during differential reinforcement treatments.     

Who Is to Blame? Children's and Adults' Moral Judgments Regarding Victim and Transgressor Negligence

Research has documented that individuals consider outcomes, intentions, and transgressor negligence when making morally relevant judgments (Nobes, Panagiotaki, & Engelhardt, 2017). However, less is known about whether individuals attend to both victim and transgressor negligence in their evaluations. The current study measured 3- to 6-year-olds (N = 70), 7- to 12-year-olds (N = 54), and adults' (N = 97, ages 18–25 years) moral judgments about scenarios in which an accidental transgression occurred involving property damage or physical harm. Participants were either assigned to conditions where the victim or the transgressor was negligent. Results revealed attention to negligence among all participants across a range of different moral judgment measures (including acceptability judgments, punishment judgments, and attributions of blame), with age-related increases in attention to negligence evident. Results provide novel evidence that children and adults consider not just outcomes and intentions, but also the role of negligence in both victims and transgressors, when making social decisions.     

The Aggregated Extremes Effect: Not All Routes to “Balanced” Bundles are Equally Appealing

Prior research establishes that consumers are averse to extreme options, but what does a “moderate” option look like in the context of choices among bundles of items, such as investment portfolios or product assortment packs? We propose that for bundles, two paths to creating risk and reward balance exist: a “bundle‐of‐pure‐moderation” with all moderate‐risk–moderate‐reward (moderate RR) components and a “bundle‐of‐extremes,” composed of equal numbers of extreme high‐risk–high‐reward (high RR) and low‐risk–low‐reward (low RR) components. We show that consumers have stronger preference for the balanced bundle when composed of a bundle‐of‐extremes rather than a bundle‐of‐pure‐moderation, even when equated on expected value, a phenomenon we term “the aggregated extremes effect.” This effect occurs across different choice set configurations and across multiple domains. Additionally, this effect is eliminated among consumers who view the high RR and low RR components as incompatible, as this undermines the perceived attractiveness of the bundle‐of‐extremes. Finally, this effect is also eliminated by exposing consumers to a depiction of potential outcomes, such that consumers can better perceive the risk reduction upside of a bundle‐of‐pure‐moderation.     

Any Size for a Dollar: The Effect of Any‐Size‐Same‐Price Versus Standard Pricing on Beverage Size Choices

Overconsumption of sugary drinks is linked with obesity. These beverages have been the target of recent public health policies, and, simultaneously, some firms have altered their pricing of such beverages, including charging the same price for all beverage sizes (“any‐size‐same‐price” pricing). We compare the effect of any‐size‐same‐price pricing versus standard pricing on soft drink beverage size choices and further explore the effect of this firm lever under different health‐related policy situations. Overall, we show that any‐size‐same‐price pricing increases consumers’ focus on the value of getting a good financial deal and thereby increases beverage size selections. Further, the allure of any‐size‐same‐price pricing prevents calorie postings from successfully reducing choice of larger sizes as occurs under standard pricing. However, a more graphic health intervention can reduce the appeal of larger sizes under any‐size‐same‐price pricing. Finally, the findings are not moderated by diet versus nondiet beverage selections, indicating that consumers do not perceive the value of larger sizes under any‐size‐same‐price pricing to come from getting more calories. We conclude by discussing how this work can improve the design of public health nutrition policies.     

Historical and political interpretations of jurisprudence and the social action perspective in sociology

It is argued that a full comprehension of classical and contemporary manifestations of the “social action perspective” in sociology will be significantly facilitated by placing it within the context of jurisprudential theory, especially the theory of legal actors. The Weberian and Parsonian views of social action theory are outlined in some detail, and these positions are related as a whole to the concept of legal action in late-nineteenth-century German jurisprudence. Having established structural similarities between the two perspectives, an historical argument is developed within which it is asserted that: (a) Among the academic disciplines of late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century Germany, jurisprudence held a relative autonomy derived from ideological circumstances which may ultimately be traced to the political economy of the nascent German state. (b) Given such an autonomy, jurisprudence provided a paradigm for the sociocultural sciences. Each of these contentions is phrased within the intellectual milieu of the day which included both Kantian and Hegelian currents. (c) Finally, certain implications are drawn from the foregoing analysis concerning ideology and contemporary social action theory, the sociology of law, and the need for future research on the relationships between jurisprudential and other forms of social theory.