Association for Behavior Analysis International

Previous research has revealed that tolerance to cocaine's effects on behavior under fixed-ratio (FR) schedules depends on the FR parameter. In contrast, tolerance to the drug's effects on behavior under fixed-interval schedules has been unrelated to FI parameter. Although FI and FR schedules with equivalent inter-reinforcement times result in roughly equivalent average post-reinforcement pause times, the distributions of pauses differ. Specifically, the conditional probability of ending the pause grows with time on FI schedules, but remains constant on FR schedules, a difference that may be related to the fact that longer pauses on FI schedules are associated with shorter delays to reinforcement, whereas that relation does not exist for FR schedules. To test whether that difference plays a role in the FI-FR difference in drug effects, pigeons were trained under a response-initiated FI schedule, wherein the FI starts timing when the pause ends. Under those conditions, tolerance was related to FI parameter.

A detailed understanding of the prevailing behavioral contingencies is a precondition for the management of most human affairs. This paper presents a language for analyzing and diagramming any system of behavioral contingencies, including the complex ones encountered in the fields of law, business, public affairs, sociology, education, and economics. The language for such analysis, and its associated notation system, specifies the if, then relationships between acts, their consequences, and the termination of time periods. Analyses and diagrams of wide-ranging examples like fraud, betting, blackmail, various games, theft, contracts, racing, competition, mutual deterrence, feuding, bargaining, deception, loan transactions, insurance, elections, global warming, personal tipping, vigilance, sexual overtures, decision making, mistaken identity, etc. are presented as illustrations of the ability of the languages three-term vocabulary (acts, consequences, and time period terminations) and the associated simple syntax to generate the myriad nuances of meaning needed to provide the required generality and reach. A process is outlined for using the system as a tool for addressing practical problems in the above areas. One approach is to develop computer software for simulating and modeling the ways in which various possible assumptions and contingency designs would play out, and the behavioral dynamics that would ensue.

Why do humans behave so badly towards one another, in the absence on any obvious deprivation or threat? Most importantly, what can practitioners do about it? My talk will look at the pervasiveness of cruelty and aversive interpersonal behavior, which ranges from the common and mundane (A husband trying to "hurt" his wife with words) to the extraordinary (e.g., the holocaust). Situationist, evolutionary, and cognitive theories provide valuable insights into the problem, but fall short in two ways. First, they explain a relatively limited range of aversive interpersonal behavior, and/or second, they provide limited accounts of how to reduce such behavior. I then illustrate how a behavioral model (ACT/RFT) provides a more comprehensive account of how to predict-and-reduce aversive interpersonal behavior. Finally, I will provide some concrete examples of how an ACT practitioner might go about reducing cruelty and promoting kindness.