Basic research needed for stimulating the development of behavioral technologies.

The costs of disconnection between the basic and applied sectors of behavior analysis are reviewed, and some solutions to these problems are proposed. Central to these solutions are collaborations between basic and applied behavioral scientists in programmatic research that addresses the behavioral basis and solution of human behavior problems. This kind of collaboration parallels the deliberate interactions between basic and applied researchers that have proven to be so profitable in other scientific fields, such as medicine. Basic research questions of particular relevance to the development of behavioral technologies are posed in the following areas: response allocation, resistance to change, countercontrol, formation and differentiation/discrimination of stimulus and response classes, analysis of low-rate behavior, and rule-governed behavior. Three interrelated strategies to build connections between the basic and applied analysis of behavior are identified: (a) the development of nonhuman animal models of human behavior problems using operations that parallel plausible human circumstances, (b) replication of the modeled relations with human subjects in the operant laboratory, and (c) tests of the generality of the model with actual human problems in natural settings.

[1]  B. Iwata The Development and Adoption of Controversial Default Technologies , 1988, The Behavior analyst.

[2]  M Perone,et al.  The Place of the Human Subject in the Operant Laboratory , 1982, The Behavior analyst.

[3]  L R Cohen,et al.  Differential sample response schedules in the acquisition of conditional discriminations by pigeons. , 1976, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[4]  B. Iwata,et al.  Negative reinforcement in applied behavior analysis: an emerging technology. , 1987, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[5]  B. Iwata,et al.  Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. , 1994, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[6]  H Rachlin,et al.  Commitment, choice and self-control. , 1972, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[7]  F. C. Mace,et al.  Impulsivity in students with serious emotional disturbance: the interactive effects of reinforcer rate, delay, and quality. , 1993, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[8]  Murray Sidman,et al.  Matching-to-sample procedures and the development of equivalence relations: The role of naming , 1986 .

[9]  A. Neuringer Can people behave "randomly?": The role of feedback. , 1986 .

[10]  Steven C. Hayes,et al.  THE CASE OF THE SILENT DOG—VERBAL REPORTS AND THE ANALYSIS OF RULES: A REVIEW OF ERICSSON AND SIMON'S PROTOCOL ANALYSIS: VERBAL REPORTS AS DATA1 , 1986 .

[11]  R. Lazar,et al.  Second-order control of sequence-class equivalences in children , 1986, Behavioural Processes.

[12]  J J McDowell,et al.  The importance of Herrnstein's mathematical statement of the law of effect for behavior therapy. , 1982, The American psychologist.

[13]  R. A. Sherman Aversives, Fundamental Rights and the Courts , 1991, The Behavior Analyst.

[14]  C. Bradshaw,et al.  Behavior of humans in variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. , 1976, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[15]  B. Skinner,et al.  Giving up the ghost , 1981, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[16]  W D Pierce,et al.  What Happened to Analysis in Applied Behavior Analysis? , 1980, The Behavior analyst.

[17]  John A. Nevin,et al.  RESPONSE STRENGTH IN MULTIPLE SCHEDULES1 , 1974 .

[18]  D. Cerutti,et al.  Discrimination theory of rule-governed behavior. , 1989, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[19]  Applying Basic Research: A Review of J. D. Keehn’s Animal Models for Psychiatry , 1987 .

[20]  R. Conger,et al.  Use of Concurrent Operants in Small Group Research , 1974 .

[21]  J. Spradlin,et al.  Establishing auditory stimulus control over an eight-member equivalence class via conditional discrimination procedures. , 1988, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[22]  O. R. Lindsley,et al.  The reinforcement of cooperation between children. , 1956, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[23]  R. Moxley Some Historical Relationships between Science and Technology with Implications for Behavior Analysis , 1989, The Behavior analyst.

[24]  J. Nevin,et al.  Alternative reinforcement increases resistance to change: Pavlovian or operant contingencies? , 1990, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[25]  M Galizio,et al.  Contingency-shaped and rule-governed behavior: instructional control of human loss avoidance. , 1979, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[26]  R. Fuqua Comments on the applied relevance of the matching law. , 1984, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[27]  L. Sánchez,et al.  The formation of visual stimulus equivalences in children. , 1984, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[28]  M. Sidman,et al.  Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: an expansion of the testing paradigm. , 1982, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[29]  F C Mace,et al.  Behavioral momentum in college basketball. , 1992, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[30]  M. Seligman,et al.  Failure to escape traumatic shock. , 1967, Journal of experimental psychology.

[31]  S C Hayes,et al.  The technical drift of applied behavior analysis. , 1980, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[32]  G. Green,et al.  Development of conditional and equivalence relations without differential consequences. , 1990, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[33]  A W Logue,et al.  Choice in a self-control paradigm: Quantification of experience-based differences. , 1984, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[34]  M. Perone,et al.  The Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior: Indispensable, Ancillary, or Irrelevant? , 1991, The Behavior analyst.

[35]  Jack Michael,et al.  Flight From Behavior Analysis Presidential Address ABA 1980 , 1980 .

[36]  S. Hayes Rule-Governed Behavior , 1989 .

[37]  P. N. Chase,et al.  Effects of response variability on the sensitivity of rule-governed behavior. , 1990, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[38]  D F Hake,et al.  The Basic-Applied Continuum and the Possible Evolution of Human Operant Social and Verbal Research , 1982, The Behavior analyst.

[39]  J. Johnston We need a new model of technology. , 1991, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[40]  B. A. Matthews,et al.  Uninstructed human responding: sensitivity to ratio and interval contingencies. , 1977, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[41]  S. Hayes The limits of technological talk. , 1991, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[42]  W D Pierce,et al.  Applied Behavior Analysis: New Directions from the Laboratory , 1983, The Behavior analyst.

[43]  R. Herrnstein On the law of effect. , 1970, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[44]  T. Ayllon,et al.  The Psychiatric Nurse as a Behavioral Engineer , 1959 .

[45]  P. Touchette,et al.  A scatter plot for identifying stimulus control of problem behavior. , 1985, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[46]  Shared Premises, Different Conclusions , 1991, The Behavior analyst.

[47]  D. Braunling‐McMorrow,et al.  Using stimulus equivalence procedures to teach name-face matching to adults with brain injuries. , 1992, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[48]  M. Davison,et al.  Delay of reinforcers in a concurrent-chain schedule: An extension of the hyperbolic-decay model. , 1988, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[49]  J. Dinsmoor The Respective Roles of Human and Nonhuman Subjects in Behavioral Research , 1991, The Behavior analyst.

[50]  A. Poling,et al.  The Schism Between Experimental and Applied Behavior Analysis: Is It Real and Who Cares? , 1981, The Behavior analyst.

[51]  K. C. Kirby,et al.  The merger and development of equivalence classes by unreinforced conditional selection of comparison stimuli. , 1988, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[52]  B. Martens,et al.  The effects of variable-interval reinforcement on academic engagement: a demonstration of matching theory. , 1992, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[53]  J. J. McDowell,et al.  Two Modern Developments in Matching Theory , 1989, The Behavior analyst.

[54]  David E. Greenway,et al.  Instructions, multiple schedules, and extinction: Distinguishing rule-governed from schedule-controlled behavior. , 1986, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[55]  J A Nevin,et al.  The analysis of behavioral momentum. , 1983, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[56]  R. Poppen,et al.  STIMULUS GENERALIZATION AND THE RESPONSE-REINFORCEMENT CONTINGENCY. , 1964, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[57]  J. Dinsmoor Observing and conditioned reinforcement , 1983, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[58]  W D Pierce,et al.  The Basic Importance of Applied Behavior Analysis , 1986, The Behavior analyst.

[59]  C. Cullen,et al.  The flight to the laboratory , 1981, The Behavior analyst.

[60]  J. M. Johnston What Can Behavior Analysis Learn From the Aversives Controversy? , 1991, The Behavior analyst.

[61]  W D Pierce,et al.  Choice, Matching, and Human Behavior: A Review of the Literature , 1983, The Behavior analyst.

[62]  M Sidman,et al.  Reading and auditory-visual equivalences. , 1971, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[63]  T. Layng,et al.  Toward a Functional Analysis of Delusional Speech and Hallucinatory Behavior , 1984, The Behavior analyst.

[64]  B. Martens,et al.  The application of Herrnstein's law of effect to disruptive and on-task behavior of a retarded adolescent girl. , 1989, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[65]  Richard J. Herrnstein,et al.  MAXIMIZING AND MATCHING ON CONCURRENT RATIO SCHEDULES1 , 1975 .

[66]  S. Hayes,et al.  OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR EQUIVALENCE CLASS FORMATION IN LANGUAGE-ABLE AND LANGUAGE-DISABLED CHILDREN , 2005 .

[67]  F C Mace,et al.  A collateral effect of reward predicted by matching theory. , 1990, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[68]  S Hale,et al.  Practical implications of the matching law. , 1984, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[69]  R J HERRNSTEIN,et al.  Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. , 1961, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[70]  J. Overmier,et al.  Effects of inescapable shock upon subsequent escape and avoidance responding. , 1967, Journal of comparative and physiological psychology.

[71]  L Green,et al.  Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior Choice between Rewards Differing in Amount and Delay: toward a Choice Model of Self Control , 2022 .

[72]  F. C. Mace,et al.  Behavioral momentum in the treatment of noncompliance. , 1988, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[73]  M. Sidman,et al.  Six-member stimulus classes generated by conditional-discrimination procedures. , 1985, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[74]  J. E. Mazur,et al.  Choice in a "self-control" paradigm: effects of a fading procedure. , 1978, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[75]  P N Chase,et al.  The effects of a variety of instructions on human fixed-interval performance. , 1988, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[76]  S. Hayes,et al.  Rule-Governed Behavior: A Potential Theoretical Framework for Cognitive–Behavioral Therapy , 1982 .

[77]  Elizabeth Pinter Lalli,et al.  The momentum of human behavior in a natural setting. , 1990, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[78]  K. Saunders Naming in conditional discrimination and stimulus equivalence. , 1989, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[79]  J. J. McDowell,et al.  Matching Theory in Natural Human Environments , 1988, The Behavior analyst.

[80]  N. A. Neef,et al.  Effects of reinforcer rate and reinforcer quality on time allocation: Extensions of matching theory to educational settings. , 1992, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[81]  R. Stromer,et al.  Control of adolescents' arbitrary matching-to-sample by positive and negative stimulus relations. , 1982, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[82]  M Sidman,et al.  A search for symmetry in the conditional discriminations of rhesus monkeys, baboons, and children. , 1982, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[83]  W. McIlvane,et al.  Complex stimulus relations and exclusion in severe mental retardation , 1985 .

[84]  D M Baer,et al.  An implicit technology of generalization. , 1977, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[85]  B. A. Matthews,et al.  Uninstructed human responding: Sensitivity of low-rate performance to schedule contingencies. , 1981, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[86]  D M Baer,et al.  A Flight of Behavior Analysis , 1981, The Behavior analyst.

[87]  Samuel M. Deitz,et al.  Current Status of Applied Behavior Analysis: Science Versus Technology. , 1978 .

[88]  T Thompson,et al.  Conditional relations by monkeys: Reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity. , 1987, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[89]  J. Nevin,et al.  The Threat of Nuclear War: Some Responses , 1986, The Behavior analyst.

[90]  A C Catania,et al.  Preference for free choice over forced choice in pigeons. , 1980, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[91]  J. Nevin,et al.  Does contingent reinforcement strengthen operant behavior? , 1987, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[92]  B. A. Matthews,et al.  Human operant performance: Sensitivity and pseudosensitivity to contingencies. , 1986, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.