|
| Theory and Application of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior |
| Monday, May 31, 2010 |
| 11:00 AM–11:50 AM |
| Lone Star Ballroom Salon D (Grand Hyatt) |
| Area: EAB |
| Chair: Sarah G. Ross (North Carolina State University) |
| |
| Developing an Approach-Avoidance Model of Human Anxiety in the Laboratory |
| Domain: Experimental Analysis |
| STEVEN ROBERT GANNON (National University of Ireland, Maynooth), Bryan T. Roche (National University of Ireland, Maynooth) |
| |
| Abstract: Approach-avoidance conflict may serve as a useful paradigm for understanding human anxiety. The present paper reports on an experiment designed to examine approach-avoidance conflicts using a group of normal adult participants. Phase 1 of the experiment established the value of a monetary reinforcer equivalent in strength to the negatively reinforcing value of escape from a mild electric shock. In Phase 2, a non-word syllable, B1, was established as a discriminative stimulus for avoidance of electric shock, while another non-word syllable, B2, was established as a discriminative stimulus for the availability of a monetary reinforcer of the value established in Phase 1. In Phase 3, two four-member equivalence classes (A1-B1-C1-D1 and A2-B2-C2-D2) were established. C1D1 and C2D2 compound stimuli were then presented as probes for derived avoidance and approach, respectively. C1C2 was also presented as a probe for a derived approach-avoidance conflict. Response patterns during non-conflict probes were as expected, but responses varied across participants during conflict probes. Skin conductance levels were also higher during conflict probes than non-conflict probes. Finally, response times were longer during conflict trials than non-conflict trials. These findings raise questions regarding the sources of control over individual participant’s responses during the probe trials. |
| |
| Using Single-Subject and Small-N Experimental Designs: A Historical and Contemporary Analysis |
| Domain: Applied Behavior Analysis |
| SARAH G ROSS (North Carolina State University), John C. Begeny (North Carolina State University) |
| |
| Abstract: Single-subject and Small-N designs refer to research designs that monitor the changes in behavior of an individual or a small group of individuals. These designs are crucial in determining the effectiveness of one or more interventions on a person’s behavior. However, there has been controversy over how best to analyze and interpret these designs. This presentation will first examine the history of small-N designs and discuss why it is important to use data-based methods to evaluate intervention effectiveness. Next, the advantages and disadvantages of traditional (graphical) approaches to analyzing small-N designs will be discussed. Third, we will discuss less common strategies for analyzing small-N designs, including the Randomization Test and Bootstrap Methods. All analytic strategies will be discussed in ways that are accessible to both researchers and practitioners. Finally, we will provide recommendations about when to use the various Small-N data analysis strategies discussed, as well as where attendees can find more information about these analyses. |
| |
|
| |