Association for Behavior Analysis International

Functional (e.g., Skinnerian) and cognitive approaches in psychology are often seen as competing and mutually exclusive. We argue that although both types of approaches have fundamentally different aims, they are situated at different levels of explanation and can therefore be mutually supportive. More specifically, whereas functional research on the environmental determinants of behavior can help constrain cognitive theories about the mental processes that mediate environment-behavior relations, cognitive research can highlight new empirical phenomena that could help functional researchers to refine behavioral principles and their conceptual or theoretical analyses. We then highlight two implications of our framework for psychotherapy and research on human cognition. First, the framework clarifies the relation between behavior therapy, cognitive behavior therapy, and acceptance and commitment therapy. Second, it sheds new light on the study of rule-governed behavior.

Licensed psychologists, certified behavior analysts, graduate students.

Programs prioritizing ?motivating Behavior Change? frequently fail to generate sustained engagement: over 80% of employees who attempt to create new, healthy behaviors still fail at continuing their training after just the first 30 days, and corporate lifestyle management programs return only $0.50 for every $1 invested (RAND, 2015). The CDC attributes 80% of chronic conditions to this inability to form successful wellbeing habits, resulting in almost $1 Trillion in lost productivity alone (CDC, 2009). The problem is not that people resist change, but they resist being changed. While health promotion can motivate employees to make episodic, temporary changes, when it comes to creating lasting results, learning the skill of creating new habits is what is vital for long-term Behavior Change. The reason: While motivation may get you started, habit keeps you going. Developed by licensed, clinical psychologists from Yale and the University of Washington, this session covers best practices in the design of sustainable Behavior Change systems that have led to the successful training of unconscious, daily habits, derived from more than eight years of clinical testing of evidence-based research from over 100 behavioral researchers. Habit Design has trained more than 500 companies and 100,000 employees - from UnitedHealthcare, Humana, Aetna, Kaiser Permanente, Stanford Medical School, Boeing, Google, The White House, and many others.

Prior knowledge has been a key construct for theories of memory, comprehension, and learning. And traditionally prior knowledge has been identified as a resilient source of information, standing strong in the face of even the most compelling refutations and evidence. In the current talk I describe experiments that call into question this characterization of prior knowledge. Work from my lab shows that well-worn expectations appear malleable (and sometimes even non-existent) when people are confronted with contradictory arguments and facts. Across a variety of demonstrations involving the presentation of text content containing potential misinformation, people subsequently rely on encoded inaccuracies leading to problematic and surprising demonstrations of ignorance. Even obvious misinformation, which individuals should know better than to fall for, can influence subsequent problem solving and decision making behaviors. This talk will identify the consequences of exposure to misinformation, as well as highlight important boundary conditions for when and how people might be encouraged to engage in more critical evaluation in the service of successful comprehension.

Educational researchers, practitioners

Contingency is a fundamental concept in associative learning, but it has not been defined in such a way that it could be measured in most conditioning paradigms, particularly operant paradigms. A simple information-theoretic measure of contingency may be applied to most classical and operant associative learning paradigms. In applying it to assess the role of contingency in maintaining responding on variable interval schedules of reinforcement, we distinguish between prospective contingency—the extent to which one event (e.g., a response) predicts another (e.g., a reinforcement)—and retrospective contingency—the extent to which one event (e.g., a reinforcement) retrodicts another (e.g., a response). We find that the prospective contingency between response and reinforcement is un-measurably small, that is, the probability of reinforcement at any latency following a response does not differ from the probability of reinforcement following a randomly chosen moment in time. By contrast, the retrospective contingency is perfect. Degrading the retrospective contingency in two different ways, by delay of reinforcement or by partial non-contingent reinforcement, suggests that reinforcement is only effective when it falls within a critical time window, which implies that retrospective temporal pairing is critical, not retrospective contingency.

Licensed Psychologists, certified behavior analysts, graduate students.