Association for Behavior Analysis International

Recently, issues concerning Autism and Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs) have received a great deal of attention. Comparisons of epidemiological data from the last 30 years suggest that there has been a significant increase in the prevalence of the disorder. However, the meaning of this increase is currently poorly understood and few population-based studies have been conducted with large U.S. samples. This talk will detail past and present efforts to document the prevalence of autism, as well as discuss implications of the apparent increase in the number of individuals affected by the spectrum of disorders. In addition, characteristics that may increase the risk for developing autism will also be discussed. The few studies that have explored possible association have mostly involved analyses of small, ethnically similar samples which may make results more difficult to generalize. Data from two investigations of large ethnically diverse populations will be highlighted and areas of future investigation will be presented.

In 1948 Dr. Skinner cleverly introduced the concept of superstitious operant conditioning to explain the results of presenting reward to a pigeon on a fixed-time, response-independent (Pavlovian) schedule. In this talk I will briefly explore: (1) Possible contributions of then recent developments in shaping-by-hand, and an increased focus on human behavior; (2) Why Skinner didn't extend the concept of superstition to account for other Pavlovian results; and (3) Whether superstitious causal inference or niche-related preorganization better accounts for the topography and timing of temporally conditioned behavior.

Behavior analysts have a long history of innovation in instruction. Lead by the efforts of Skinner and Keller in programmed instruction and PSI, many behaviorists have used the principles of behavior analysis to inform their teaching. However, in contrast to the hey days of programmed instruction and the excitement of PSI, the past decade has seen little published research on instructional innovation based on behavior analytic principles. We will present examples of how behavior analytic principles can be used to improve instructional programs and university courses.

The Behavior Analysis Training System (BATS) is a system my graduate and undergraduate advisees and I continue to evolve within the Behavior Analysis Program at WMU. We have designed BATS to provide as much behavioral support as possible for all our behavior-analysis students from freshmen Honors College students to doctoral students. BATS is a complex, multi-faceted program; and behavior analysis, behavior systems analysis, and organizational behavior management are embedded into its day to day operations and into its design and organic evolution; but behavior analysis, behavior systems analysis, and organizational behavior management are also the subject matter and the basis of the skills we teach within this program. We are a behavioral, systems version of an Escher drawing of a hand drawing a picture of a hand drawing a picture of a hand drawing a picture of a hand. We not only teach behavior analysis, behavior systems analysis, and organizational behavior management, but we and our teaching benefit from these approaches as well. And it works.

Two recent empirical results from the study of contingent food delivery on local choice may have implications for our basic understanding of reinforcement. First, in the within-sessions (Davison & Baum, 2000) procedure, and also in second-order schedules, brief stimuli that are paired with reinforcer delivery produce a preference pulse following the stimulus presentation; but so do brief stimuli that have never been paired with food delivery; and if stimuli that are paired with food delivery follow responses on the lower reinforcer-rate alternative, they are followed by a preference pulse on the other alternative. These results argue against the notion of conditional reinforcement and suggest that stimuli that signal higher subsequent conditional probabilities of food for a certain activity at a location are followed by increases in that activity at that location. Second, when food delivery itself signals subsequent higher conditional probabilities of food, a preference pulse follows to the alternative that gave food; but when food delivery signals a lower subsequent conditional probability of food, the following preference pulse is to the other alternative. If a contingent event that increases subsequent responding is a reinforcer, then sometimes an event paired with food is a reinforcer, sometimes it is not; sometimes, the reinforcer reinforces, and sometimes it does not. This unsatisfactory state of affairs is not alleviated by asserting that reinforcers and conditional reinforcers have discriminative properties additional to their reinforcing properties and that sometimes the discriminative properties may ablate the reinforcing properties. Rather, these results make us confront the possibility that we have been wrong about reinforcement for 100 years. Perhaps stimuli (including reinforcers themselves) simply signal to an animal where to look for more of the same, or where to avoid for fewer of the same. Perhaps a reinforcer, as we know it, is simply a punctate hedonic event (hedon) with some current valance, and perhaps behavior simply follows the signposts provided by discriminative stimuli. Such an approach has many theoretical and practical implications.

Clinical behavior analysis has made great strides over the last ten years. It can be distinguished from the larger field of applied behavior analysis in at least three ways. First, it is generally used with verbally competent, free-ranging humans who voluntarily seek treatment for the kinds of problems addressed by mainstream psychotherapy, e.g., depression, anxiety, and interpersonal distress. Second, these clinical problems are not easily understood or explained in terms of basic behavior analytic concepts, such as the three-term contingency. They require a more complex analysis, often involving verbal processes including stimulus equivalence, transformation of function, and relational responding. Third, treatment interventions with these types of clients are typically verbal and do not involve direct manipulation of reinforcement contingencies. The purpose of this talk is to acquaint basic behavior analysts with recent developments in clinical behavior analysis, the basic research that has been most helpful in formulating treatment interventions, and some of the research issues that remain to be addressed. This session was designed to foster dialogue between clinical behavior analysis and the experimental analysis of behavior. In order to facilitate this interaction, Dr. Doughers paper will be followed by approximately fifteen minutes of discussion by Dr. Carol Pilgrim.

The author reflects on 40 years in the field from its (western) beginnings at Arizona State University circa 1960 to his retirement as Emeritus Professor at Utah State University in 2004. In between he discusses early applied behavior analysis; experimental child psychology; and the experimental analysis of behavior program at Utah State University, including its students, who, it can be presumed, are at least partially responsible for the present award.