Perspectives on Behavior Science最新文献

The implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) was initially developed as a way to assess the strength and probability of natural verbal relations, as defined within relational frame theory (RFT), and was conceptually rooted within the behavior-analytic tradition. However, the IRAP quickly became employed primarily as a measure of implicit cognition, more in line with mainstream psychology than behavior analysis. In doing so, research using the IRAP increasingly employed ill-defined mainstream psychological terms, focused on correlational analyses with traditional psychometry, and thus emphasized prediction over the prediction-and-influence of behavior. Although perhaps beneficial to the study of implicit cognition, this approach could be argued to have limited the IRAP's utility in behavior analyses of human language and cognition. In the current article we will reflect on this suggestion, on the IRAPs place and current use in the field of behavior analysis, and on its potential future within behavioral psychology in light of recent conceptual and empirical advances in RFT. In doing so, it is hoped that the measure may be refined into a better understood, more precise, functional-analytic tool.

Contingency management (CM) interventions are based on operant principles and are effective in promoting health behaviors. Despite their success, a common criticism of CM is that its effects to not persist after the intervention is withdrawn. Many CM studies evaluate posttreatment effects, but few investigate procedures for promoting maintenance. Token economy interventions and CM interventions are procedurally and conceptually similar. The token economy literature includes many studies in which procedures for promoting postintervention maintenance are evaluated. A systematic literature review was conducted to synthesize the literature on treatment maintenance in token economies. Search procedures yielded 697 articles, and application of inclusion/exclusion criteria resulted in 37 articles for review. The most successful strategy is to combine procedures. In most cases, thinning or fading was combined with programmed transfer of control via social reinforcement or self-management. Social reinforcement and self-monitoring procedures appear to be especially important, and were included in 70% of studies involving combined approaches. Thus, our primary recommendation is to incorporate multiple maintenance strategies, at least one of which should facilitate transfer of control of the target behavior to other reinforcers. In addition, graded removal of the intervention, which has also been evaluated to a limited extent in CM, is a reasonable candidate for further development and evaluation. Direct comparisons of maintenance procedures are lacking, and should be considered a research priority in both domains. Researchers and clinicians interested in either type of intervention will likely benefit from ongoing attention to developments in both areas.

Incorporating historical readings and discussion into applied behavior-analytic coursework may be an important strategy for developing well-rounded behavior analysts. However, little guidance is available to instructors interested in teaching the history of applied behavior analysis. This article describes how the history of behavior analysis can be incorporated into a course on applied behavior analysis to achieve this goal. The history of punishment/aversives in behavior analysis will be provided as an example of how the history of behavior analysis can be embedded into applied coursework. The historical interaction between the culture at large (i.e., the culture beyond behavior analysis) and behavior-analytic literature and events related to punishment will be described because both affect the field and have led to the current state of practice. History related to early ethical standards, early experimental analysis of behavior literature, the backlash against early applied behavior analysis, and the field of behavior analysis' response to the backlash is discussed.

In our previous article on threats to internal validity of multiple baseline design variations (Slocum et al., 2022), we argued that nonconcurrent multiple baseline designs (NCMB) are capable of rigorously demonstrating experimental control and should be considered equivalent to concurrent multiple baselines (CMB) in terms of internal validity. We were fortunate to receive five excellent commentaries on our article from experts in single-subject research design-four of whom endorsed the conclusion that NCMBs should be considered strong experimental designs capable of demonstrating experimental control. In the current article, we address the most salient points made in the five commentaries by further elaborating and clarifying the logic described in our original article. We address arguments related to classic threats including maturation, testing and session experience, and coincidental events (history). We rebut the notion that although NCMBs are strong, CMBs provide an increment of additional control and discuss the application of probability-based analysis of the likelihood of threats to internal validity. We conclude by emphasizing our agreement with many of the commentaries that selection of single-case experimental designs should be based on the myriad subtleties of research priorities and contextual factors rather than on a decontextualized hierarchy of designs.

In the target article, Slocum et al. (2022) suggested that nonconcurrent multiple baseline designs can provide internal validity comparable to concurrent multiple baseline designs. We provide further support for this assertion; however, we highlight additional considerations for determining the relative strength of each design. We advocate for a more nuanced approach to evaluating design strength and less reliance on strict adherence to a specific set of rules because the details of the design only matter insofar as they help researchers convince others that the results are valid and accurate. We provide further support for Slocum et al.'s argument by emphasizing the relatively low probability that within-tier comparisons would fail to identify confounds. We also extend this logic to suggest that staggering implementation of the independent variable across tiers may be an unnecessary design feature in certain cases. In addition, we provide an argument that nonconcurrent multiple baseline designs may provide verification within baseline logic contrary to arguments made by previous researchers. Despite our general support for Slocum et al.'s assertions and our advocacy for more nuanced approaches to determining the strength of experimental designs, we urge experimenters to consider the perspectives of researchers from other fields who may favor concurrent multiple-baseline designs and suggest that using concurrent multiple-baseline designs when feasible may foster dissemination of behavior analytic research.

This is a review of content and method for incorporating the history of the experimental analysis of behavior (EAB) into the EAB course, although the material also could be adapted for any course related to the topics of learning and behavior change, or the history of psychology. Six elements associated with establishing a new discipline are considered as a framework for introducing the history of EAB: the intellectual leader/founding scientist(s), early proponents of the new area who advance and elaborate on the founder's ideas, the cultural context in which the discipline develops, a set of methods, a textbook, and means of communicating with other, similarly inclined scientists. The historical ebb and flow of research and some of the reasons for these shifts are discussed next, with examples of EAB research themes that have shifted over time. Illustrating the history of EAB with specific milestone experiments seems a useful way to both introduce substantive research and its history. To that end, milestone experiments in EAB are discussed. The review ends with considerations about locating historical material within the EAB course.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1007/s40614-022-00340-3.].

In this special section of Perspectives on Behavior Science, Slocum et al. (2022) provide a summary of the logic and protocol for the construction, implementation, and analysis of single-case multiple-baseline designs. A major contribution of this article is a reassessment of the nonconcurrent multiple baseline design as a credible approach to documenting experimental control. In this commentary we provide considerations for readers as they approach the Slocum et al. article and suggest that although the resurrection of nonconcurrent multiple-baseline designs to a higher status is warranted, researchers will find more control for threats to internal validity in concurrent multiple-baseline designs, and the concurrent format should remain the preferred option.

A preliminary theory of a temporary increase in the rate of an operant response with the transition to extinction (i.e., the extinction burst) is proposed. The theory assumes reinforcers are events permitting access to some valuable activity, and that such activity can compete for allocation with the target response under some conditions (e.g., very high reinforcement rates). With the transition to extinction, elimination of this competition for allocation can produce an increase in the the target response, but the increase is transient because the value of the target response decreases with exposure to extinction. The theory provides a way to understand why the extinction burst is not ubiquitous, seems more common following very small ratio schedules, occurs for a short period of time following the transition to extinction, and may be eliminated with the availability of alternative reinforcement. It appears to provide a reasonable starting point for a theory of the extinction burst that does not necessarily require inclusion of invigorating effects of frustration, and it is closely aligned with Resurgence as Choice theory. Additional research on factors modulating reinforcement-related activities and how they affect the extinction burst could help to further evaluate the theory.