Brian A. Iwata: In Memorial

Abstract

When I first met Brian in July 1982, he had just been elected to the Editorship of the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA). I was a new predoctoral intern in the Department of Behavioral Psychology at the John F. Kennedy Institute, now the Kennedy Krieger Institute. My first rotation was in the behavioral inpatient unit at the hospital that Brian directly supervised. The inpatient unit served children with developmental disabilities who had severe behavior disorders such as self-injurious behavior (SIB) and physical aggression. In addition to preparing to assume the JABA editorship and direction of the inpatient unit, Brian was focused on executing a large grant that he had received from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In this tribute to Brian, I would like to offer my perspectives on how Brian's work transformed applied behavior analysis (ABA) and how Brian's leadership at JABA radically changed the journal for the better.

The topic of Brian's NIH grant was the functional assessment of SIB. I know that Brian was influenced significantly by Ted Carr's theoretical paper on the motivation of SIB (Carr, 1977) and Carr's subsequent experimental demonstration that physical aggression could be a function of escape from demands (Carr et al., 1976). Brian's pilot data for the grant consisted of applications of his unique functional analysis methodology that allowed testing of multiple possible functions of SIB in the same assessment. This pilot work was the basis for Brian's seminal and field-transforming article “Toward a Functional Analysis of Self-Injury” (Iwata et al., 1982/1994). This article changed the field of ABA, became the dominant approach to assessment and treatment of behavior disorders across a variety of populations and settings, significantly influenced practices in clinical psychology and special education in general, and became the publication standard for scientific research and grant awards (Mace, 1994). Importantly, as is the tradition in science, numerous variants in functional analysis methodologies evolved to meet specific needs and Brian participated in this process.

How could one paper have such a profound influence? Although this is a question without a definitive answer, a closer look at the context in which Iwata et al. (1982/1994) was published suggests a few answers. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, there was a growing and widespread dissatisfaction with behavior modification. Behavior modification was criticized as being too simplistic, too reliant on default technologies (e.g., various forms of punishment and contrived positive reinforcers), and vulnerable to significant side effects (e.g., Deitz, 1978; Hayes et al., 1980; Iwata, 1988). From my perspective, among the most significant influences of Brian's paper was that it changed the fundamental question that ABA could ask. Instead of “How can we change behavior?” as in behavior modification, functional analysis permitted the questions, “Why is this behavior occurring?” and “How can this information be used to design individualized and more sophisticated interventions?” For me as a young intern, this was a complete game changer. When I entered my PhD program, I really had little idea of what skills I would acquire from training. When I arrived for my internship, I was truly disappointed that my training to date gave me two main behavior-change tools: M&Ms and crude forms of punishment. Brian's work opened the world of science to me, and for that I have been forever grateful.

The research record is very clear that functional analysis has led directly to the development and evolution of increasingly nuanced and sophisticated interventions that were simply not possible within a behavior modification paradigm. The assessment and treatment technologies are now numerous and varied, and they bear no resemblance to the possibilities available when I was an intern. The skills needed by an ABA practitioner and researcher are enormous and set standards of training that are bringing ABA parallel with many medical specialties. This complete transformation of ABA is due, in large part, to the lifetime work of Brian Iwata.

In addition to Brian's contributions to the science of behavior, Brian single-handedly, not a term to use lightly, changed the trajectory of JABA. Most will know that JABA was established by Baer, Wolf, and Risley based at the University of Kansas. The contents of JABA during the Kansas years reflected the technologies available at the time. Both JABA and ABA were warmly greeted by many of the applied psychology communities. Behavior-change procedures were scientifically based, objective, and their influence on behavior was directly measured and evaluated with single-subject experimental designs. The alternatives were psychodynamic psychologies. The contrast with ABA could not be more different.

However, in the 1970s there were calls to diversify JABA. On the positive side, study populations expanded to include groups commonly seen in clinical psychology, which was a welcome diversification beyond individuals with developmental disabilities. Less desirable from a behavior-analytic perspective was the reliance on cognitive, or mentalist, accounts of behavior, indirect measures of poorly operationally defined behavioral constructs (checklists and rating scales), and group research methods. Brian returned JABA to its historical roots: Direct measurement of behavior and single-subject research designs were required for publication. That tradition largely continues to this day and seems highly unlikely to change because “that's who we are.” I do not think it is an overstatement to say that Brian saved JABA.

As many have said, “Brian was a giant.” This is true in so many ways. Fortunately, his scientific legacy and mentorship will endure.