VOL 1 | NO 3
Why Behavior Analysts Should Feel
STUPID
P. 13
Stimulus Control
and Repeat Offenders
P. 15
Behavior Analysis
Gone Wild!
(sort of...)
P. 1
FROM THE EDITOR’S DESK
This is the last issue of 2015 for BAQ. This issue also marks the end of my
second full year at the helm of the magazine (formerly Behavior Analysis
Digest International). When I took over BADI from Joe Wyatt, I had a vision
to take the publication to as wide an audience as I could. This mission is very
much in line with Joe’s. Reflecting on this last year made me realize how
much we depend on the work of others to make anything we do a success.
First, the BAQ editors have been tremendously supportive. Their responsiveness to deadlines, edits, and last-minute “we need 300 more words!” have
been greatly appreciated. Our columns have seen wider-reaching topics,
greater variety on features, and contributions from across the U.S. and the
world in the Digest.
But of course, we must stay actively growing. To grow, we must understand
our limits and make use of those who have talents we do not. When I ran
BADI, I did the layout, production, and packaging myself. Turns out--I stink
at that! So I hired a graphic designer to give me a template from which to
create BAQ. Turns out--I stink at marketing, too. I, for one, am terrible at
social media. I cannot market anything on Twitter, Facebook, or any other
social site. But others can. I cannot keep websites updated and maintained. I
don’t know why... I should, but I just keep forgetting.
So to help BAQ grow, BAQ must get the help of professionals with a proven
track record of success in these areas. And that’s exactly what we’ve done.
Mission
Behavior Analysis Quarterly
has as its mission the
dissemination and celebration
of all things behavior analysis.
BAQ Staff
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Benjamin N. Witts
St. Cloud State University
COLUMNISTS
Todd A. Ward
University of North Texas
Daniel Reimer
University of Nevada, Reno
Chelsea Wilhite
University of Nevada, Reno
THE DIGEST EDITOR
Julie Ackerlund Brandt
St. Cloud State University
Starting next issue, BAQ will come under the umbrella of bSci21media, the
company that brings you bSci21.com.
Stay tuned--good things are coming out way!
Contact the editor at:
benjamin.witts@gmail.com
Author Submissions Information:
www.baquarterly.com
Benjamin N. Witts, Ph.D., BCBA
Assistant Professor - Behavior Analysis
Dept of Community Psychology, Counseling, and Family Therapy
St. Cloud State University
benjamin.witts@gmail.com
© 2015 Stimulus Press, LLC
VOL 1 | NO 3
COLUMNS
FEATURES
DIGEST
BEHAVIORIST CROSSING
13
A Behavioral Approach to Sex
Offender Therapy
A Walk on the Wild Side: A Behaviorist’s Career working with Animals
DANIEL REIMER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
On Feeling Stupid
BENJAMIN N. WITTS
Is Problem Behavior all that Bad?
15
Preference for and Reinforcing Efficacy
of Different Types of Attention
SARA CAGLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS AND
WORLD EVENTS
Behavior-Based Traffic Safety
TODD WARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
LIVE IT!
Tantrumming Tots
CHELSEA WILHITE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
KEVIN FUNKHAUSER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
MARY HALBUR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
The Potential Role of Stimulus
Control in Recidivism
Lattal and Wacker Host Special Issue
on Recurrence of Operant Behavior
STAFF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
ERINN LARKIN
FROM THE LAB
Your Token Economy Needs Some
Work
BENJAMIN N. WITTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
OUR VERBAL BEHAVIOR
Discriminating Discriminative Stimuli
BENJAMIN N. WITTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
RECOGNITION
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
INGRAM+PUBLISHING / THINKSTOCK
Behavioral Crossing: The field of behavior analysis is varied and diverse. The science
can be useful to practically any profession, allowing us to work or contribute in many
different settings. However, many of us are not aware of the unique and uncommon
professional opportunities available to behavior analysts. This column strives to
highlight the diverse areas in which behavior analyst’s work and to inspire all behavior
analysts to pursue opportunities in areas not traditionally part of our repertoires.
BEHAVIORIST CROSSING
Daniel Reimer / University of Nevada, Reno
A Walk on the Wild Side:
An Interview with Christina Alligood, PhD, BCBA-D
Earlier this year I spoke with
Christina Alligood regarding her job,
interdisciplinary work, and building
a path to animal care as a behavior
analyst.
Alligood
What is your current
occupation and job title?
I work at Disney’s Animal Kingdom as a Behavioral Scientist.
I am a member of the Science
Operations team, where I work
with an interdisciplinary group of
scientists and animal care professionals. Among other things, I work
directly with our Behavioral Husbandry Managers to integrate the
science of operant learning into our
animal training and environmental
enrichment programs. I am also an
assistant professor at FIT; I teach
behavior analysis master’s students
in Orlando, but in my answers
below I will focus on my work at
Disney.
What does a typical day look
like for you?
A typical day for me might include some meetings (sometimes
in offices and sometimes at animal
care areas), some writing and other
project work (including instructional design, manuscript and
grant reviews, data analyses, etc.),
and sometimes some staff training
(including animal care staff and
interns).
What aspects
of your job do
you find most
interesting?
This is a tough question because one of
the reasons I love my
job is that there are
so many interesting
parts! One interesting
aspect is translating
the operant learning
principles gleaned
from other settings
into applications for
the zoo setting. I get
to do this in multiple
ways, including, for
example, problem
solving, planning, data
collection, and decision making with animal care teams as well
as developing content
1
VOL. 1 / NO. 3
for staff training. One of the most
gratifying aspects so far is that I am
able to work in an area that is relatively untapped by behavior analysis
while staying active in the behavior
analysis community.
Are there any additional skills you had to learn
or develop after graduate
school? What were they?
Yes, there have been many! For example, when I first came to Disney
I worked on a captive-breeding
BEHAVIORIST CROSSING
and reintroduction program for
an endangered species. I did a lot
of field work and learned about
population monitoring, radio
tracking, and many other things
that were entirely new to me. I’ve
solving.
What is the biggest benefit
to working in an occupation
that is “non-traditional” for a
behavior analyst?
Are there difficulties working
with non-behavior analysts?
If so, what are they and what
have you done to adapt?
I feel very fortunate to work with
scientists and professionals with
a variety of different backgrounds
and specializations. We each bring a
particular set of skills and expertise
to the table, and apply them collaboratively to common goals. A newer
or nontraditional area of application
is probably not the best fit for those
who have difficulty working with
colleagues who are not behavior
analysts.
Do you think it is important
for behavior analysts to work
in non-traditional areas? If
so, why?
also really developed and refined
my collaboration skills in the years
since graduate school. Those skills
are tremendously important for
achieving success in an unfamiliar
environment with colleagues from
different backgrounds.
I think it’s very exciting to be
involved in a “newer” area of
application because it affords lots
Was there anything that
surprised you when you first
started your career?
One thing that has been interesting
to me is the many parallels between
zoo work and other settings where
behavior analysis is practiced, such
as schools. Like teachers, animal
keepers are very passionate about
their jobs and work very hard to
produce great outcomes for those
in their care. This makes them great
partners in behavioral problem
Yes. As others have noted, diversification is critical to our survival as a
discipline. I also think it’s important for behavior analysts working
“Show it, then tell it.”
of opportunities to support other
behavior analysts who are interested
in that area. I enjoy interacting with
students and interns and trying to
assist them as they explore careers
in this area.
2
VOL. 1 / NO. 3
in different areas of interest to talk
with and support each other.
Do you have any suggestions
or tips for people who are
interested in starting a career
like yours?
BEHAVIORIST CROSSING
Yes. My advice varies
considerably depending
on individual goals and
contexts, but here are
few general suggestions:
1. When trying to
establish yourself in a
new area, your first jobs
are to learn all you can
and to pair yourself with
reinforcers. Hold off on
sharing your suggestions
until you’ve made some
progress in those two
areas.
2. Make yourself useful.
You will build credibility if you are known as
someone who pitches in
and works hard on things that people in the organization already value
(as opposed to telling them what
their priorities should be). While
you’re doing this, look for opportunities to demonstrate some of your
behavior-analytic skills.
3. Show it, then tell it. As you come
across opportunities to use your
skills, resist the urge to label and
explain behavior-analytic practices
a priori. Instead, wait until your colleagues have seen good results from
a strategy; then you can give them a
name for it.
3
VOL. 1 / NO. 3
4. If you want to work in zoos, get
some animal-care experience. The
job listings at aza.org often have
internship and entry-level openings
posted. n
Skinner’s vision for Radical Behaviorism had cultural
analysis at its core. Today, behavior analysts working
on cultural issues are few and far between. Behavior
Analysis and World Events returns behavior analysts
to their roots by addressing current events of the
21st century from a behavior analytic perspective.
BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS AND WORLD EVENTS
Todd Ward / University of North Texas
Behavior-Based Traffic Safety
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL),
traffic fatalities are the leading cause
of death in the U.S. for those aged
3-34 (Teigen, Shinkle, & Essex, February, 2005). Speeding accounts for
approx. 10,000 annual fatalities, while
running red lights accounts for 750
deaths and 260,000 injuries (NCSL,
February 27, 2015; Teigen, Shinkle,
& Essex, February, 2005).
duction of speed-detecting cameras
in select locations. After only six
months, the county witnessed a
significant reduction in speeding and,
after seven years, individuals speeding
by more than 10 mph decreased by
59% in comparison to control roads
with no cameras. During the same
seven year period, the probability that
a crash would produce a fatality or
incapacitating injury fell by 19%.
In an effort to make our roads safer,
an increasing number of law enforcement agencies have embraced
the technology known as automated
enforcement. From a law enforcement perspective, the attractiveness
of the program is based on efficiency
of resources—automation implies
an agency can do more with less
(NCSL, February 27, 2015). In the
U.S., more than 400 communities use
some form of automated enforcement
to enforce red light laws, while over
40 use the system to enforce speeding
laws (NCSL, February 27, 2015).
In 2012, the IIHS took their program
a step further with the introduction
of speed corridors, or long stretches
of road targeted with cameras rather
than isolated sections. The IIHS
noted “the cameras are regularly
moved to different locations on those
roads so drivers don’t become familiar
with their exact locations.” With the
introduction of corridors, the probability of fatality or serious injury
dropped 30%, in addition to the 19%
reported previously. What’s more are
IIHS reports of a “spillover effect”
wherein significant speeding reductions are observed on non-targeted
roadways.
The largest study to-date comes from
a multi-year project in Washington D.C., funded by the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS
News, September 1, 2015). The IIHS
President was quoted by IIHS News
as saying “We’re all accustomed to
seeing posted limits ignored, but it’s a
mistake to think nothing can be done
about it. Automated enforcement
is one of the tools we have at our
disposal.” If every county in the U.S.
adopted automated enforcement, the
IIHS estimated “more than 21,000
fatal or incapacitating injuries would
have been prevented in 2013.”
The study began in Montgomery
County in 2007, with the intro-
State law varies widely on how
municipalities can use traffic cameras,
the key component of automated enforcement. For example, the District
of Columbia authorized the use of
cameras for the enforcement of “all
moving infractions” (Teigen, Shinkle,
& Essex, February, 2005, p. 52), while
Texas permits cameras for the enforcement of red light laws only, and
West Virginia prohibits any use of
photo enforcement (Teigen, Shinkle,
& Essex, February, 2005).
However, Ohio presents an interesting case that taps into the incentives
to use or discard automated enforce4
VOL. 1 / NO. 3
ment. According to The Vindicator,
the state recently passed a law that
permits camera-based enforcement as
long as an officer is physically present,
similar to a more traditional speed
gun (Kovac, September 9, 2015).
Law enforcement agencies oppose
the law for its requirement that an
officer be present, which they say removes any incentive to use the cameras in the first place. As mentioned
before, the primary incentive from an
agency perspective is that automated
systems allow for the more efficient
use of organizational resources. As a
result, many Ohio communities have
ceased camera-based enforcement all
together (Kovac, September 9, 2015).
Automated enforcement programs
also have ancillary benefits for the
communities in which they reside.
For one, the potential for a significant
revenue boost to the city is very likely.
For example, Edmonton Canada
anticipates an increase in photo-radar
enforcement revenue from $30 million in 2014 to $47.8 million in 2015,
all from traffic violations ( Jones,
September 7, 2015). The Washington
Post reports that Chicago tops the
list of U.S. cities in terms of revenue
gained from enforcement cameras at
over $90 million per year, followed by
New York with $41 million per year
(Crunched, May 1, 2015).
Additionally, the slower one drives,
the less fuel is used, which means less
pollution and more money in citizens’ pockets. For instance, Halsey
(September, 1, 2015) noted that a
Toyota Camry gets 40 miles per
gallon when traveling at 55 miles per
hour. Increasing the speed to 60 mph
decreases gas mileage to 35 mpg,
while increasing to 75 mph drops the
BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS AND WORLD EVENTS
mileage even further, to 30 mpg.
But the program isn’t without critics.
Twelve state legislatures have explicitly prohibited the use of enforcement
cameras, and a recent Washington
Post poll suggested 40% of respondents opposed the idea—more so
for people who lived in regions with
cameras already in place (Halsey,
September 1, 2015). At the city level,
Cleveland recently voted to discontinue the use of cameras, which
prompted Xerox to file a lawsuit
against the city for breach of contract.
Xerox signed a three-year deal to
supply the city with cameras, which
was terminated early due to voter
responses (FoxNews, September 10,
2015). Ohio citizens complained
that camera-based enforcement “were
little more than a money grab” given
that approx. 35% of revenue from
fines went to a company that helps
run the program. The same citizens
alleged that the camera systems are
not without error, resulting in citations going to the wrong people, and
a lack of appeals processes suitable
for the program (Kovac, September
9, 2015).
The story of automated enforcement
presents an interesting challenge to
behavior analysts. Data suggests the
systems are effective at increasing
the safety of our roadways, and the
behavioral processes involved seem
fairly straightforward. Under the
traditional methods of traffic enforcement, the probability that any given
driver would receive a ticket was relatively low. A ticket was contingent
upon first contacting a police officer
on the roadway, and many times
drivers can see the police vehicle in
the distance or infer the presence of a
speed trap when other drivers in the
vicinity reduce their speed. Granted,
most people have likely received a
speeding ticket in the past—some
more than others—but the tickets
are typically few and far between. In
fact, the high dollar amounts coming
into city budgets as a result of automatic enforcement is a testament to
how many people do not obey traffic
rules.
I have received a ticket from an
automated enforcement program for
running a red light. The ticket itself
even had a link to a video where I
could see myself running the light
in question. Even though the ticket
didn’t come in the mail for a few
weeks after the infraction, my driving
behavior has sensitized to cameras
mounted at intersections. If I were
consulting to a municipality on how
to further improve the effectiveness
of automated enforcement technologies I would recommend that the
systems embrace the modern era of
smartphones. Instead of using outdated “snail mail” technology to deliver tickets, the delayed contingency
between the traffic violation and the
receipt of a citation could be reduced
to near a near instantaneous consequence if systems were in place to
email or text an “e-citation” moments
after the infraction.
But the ends don’t always justify the
means. For cities like Cleveland that
experience a large backlash against
automated enforcement policies,
those in power might find comfort
in knowing that Applied Behavior
Analysis has a sizable literature on
interventions to increase driver safety,
for a fraction of the cost of camera
systems. For example, Van Houten,
Full References at www.BAQuarterly.com/behavior-based
5
VOL. 1 / NO. 3
Nau, and Marini (1981) installed
highway signs that provided daily
or weekly feedback on the percentage of drivers who were driving at
appropriate speeds. The researchers
found that daily and weekly postings
were equally as effective at reducing speeds. However, the effects of
the signs vanished when the signs
showed no numerical feedback. In a
similar study, Van Houten, and Nau
(1981) found that feedback effectively reduced speeding on urban
highways, and was ten times more
effective at reducing speed than were
police surveillance and ticketing.
Van Houten’s effects have been
replicated by Iclanders Ragnarsson and Bjorgvinsson (1991). The
latter group posted signs along roads
entering residential areas. As in the
previous studies, the signs contained feedback on the percentage
of drivers traveling at appropriate
speeds. The team also created a
condition in which a sign containing
an ideal speed followed the feedback
sign. Results mirrored those of Van
Houten, in that the feedback signs
significantly reduced speeding, with
the follow-up sign producing much
smaller speed reductions.
But the studies on highway feedback
only scratch the surface of how behavior analysts have successfully intervened on traffic safety as a whole.
The point is that evidence-based
solutions to traffic enforcement exist.
Behavior analysts have been demonstrating their successes for over three
decades. When automated enforcement systems evoke resistance from
the public, other options are available
that, on the surface at least, appear
benign. n
Behavior analysis’ leaders advocate using our science in solving the world’s
problems. While we celebrate successes in some areas, limited mainstream
acceptance is seen as failure to achieve the sweeping goals set by our pioneers.
One definition of “success” could include engaging in behavior-analyticallyinformed behaviors as a consistent practice. I set out to find examples of behavior
analysts engaging in behavior analytic practices outside of their occupations.
LIVE IT!
Chelsea Wilhite / University of Nevada, Reno
Tantruming Tots
My son just turned a year old. As
any parent will tell you, watching
your child grow and learn about
the world is an amazingly fulfilling
experience. And along with the joy
comes the sometimes terrifying
knowledge that as your child learns
more skills, his frustrations and
behavioral excesses also become
more complicated. On particularly
difficult days, I see glimpses of the
potential tantrums my son might
develop in the coming years. My
husband and I keep an ongoing
dialogue about avoiding situations
that trigger these episodes and how
to prevent ourselves from reinforcing whining and crying behaviors.
Fortunately, when it comes to minimizing tantrum behaviors, we have
some exemplary models to imitate.
Christina Lydon is a BCBA,
practitioner, and doctoral student
in Reno, Nevada. She and her
husband, Wes, have two daughters. Their oldest, Elena, is three
years old, and besides being one of
the smartest preschoolers I have
ever known (she knows when to
use “good” and when to use “well”
in complex sentences), Elena is
extremely well behaved. Over
the years, I have talked with both
Christina and Wes about how they
minimized Elena’s challenging but
typical toddler behaviors. Their
answers are everything you would
expect from the family of a Behavior Analyst.
The Lydons make a point to
identify functions of precursor-to-tantrum behaviors and teach
replacement behaviors. During the
instances in which Elena engages
in tantrum behaviors (e.g., screaming, crying, throwing herself on the
floor), Christina and Wes withhold social attention while making
sure she is unable to injure herself.
Christina emphasizes they also
make use of rules.
cation of these procedures. Now
that I have a child of my own, I
can understand just how impressive
that is. I asked Christina how she
maintains treatment integrity while
experiencing all those emotions
parents feel when their children cry,
whine, or are otherwise emotionally distressed. One tool they use
“What we do
generally is restate the rule,
which is usually
something along
the lines of, ‘Once
you calm down,
we can talk about
it,’ and then we
wait for her to
take a break
from the crying/screaming,”
Christina tells me.
“Usually, while
she is still crying,
I’ll engage myself
in another activity,
sometimes in the
same room and
sometimes in the
next room. When
she then takes a
break, or seems to
calm (even just a little bit), I’ll come back to her, thank
her for calming down, and then we
can talk about her problem.”
during particularly difficult episodes
is to put physical distance between
themselves and their toddler.
As I said, these are measures you
would expect in any behavior analytic-oriented family, but from my
personal observations, the Lydons
are very consistent in their appli-
“Depending on the severity, we
sometimes will carry her into her
room and tell her that she can stay
in there to calm down and come
back out when she feels ready. We
6
VOL. 1 / NO. 3
Miss Elena Lydon
LIVE IT!
don’t close the door, and it isn’t
meant to be a punishment but just
a way for us to limit accidental reinforcement and to give her a place
to calm down where she is comfortable. She usually ends up calming,
playing for a little while, and then
coming back out. At this point, we
usually praise her for calming down
(trying to reinforce that little bit of
self-management she just engaged
in).” Still physical distance cannot
eliminate a parent’s emotions.
“I generally feel more stress/frustration/exasperation than sadness,”
Christina says. “Usually to decompress I’ll have to spend a little time
alone or talking to Wes as a sort
of debrief.” Another tool they use
involves more objective evaluations
of the event. “Usually, some of the
things she does are funny in retrospect, so looking at it again more
objectively later can help, as can
specifically looking for the humor
in the situation.”
After a stressful incident, Christina
says re-establishing the parent-child
bond can be valuable. “It helps to
do something fun together afterwards, to specifically pair myself
with reinforcement after having to
lay down the law, so to speak.”
By implementing behavior analytic
techniques when addressing their
daughter’s tantruming behavior,
including teaching replacement
behaviors, making use of rules,
putting tantruming on extinction,
maintaining treatment integrity,
reinforcing appropriate behavior,
and managing their own covert
behaviors, Christina and Wes
Lydon create an environment in
which their daughter’s tantruming
behaviors are minimized or avoided
completely. In their parenting style,
the Lydons are living it! (I merely
hope I can follow in their footsteps
with my own child.). n
Aim High!
Applied Behavior Analysis
High-Quality, Comprehensive, and Flexible!
• No. 1 ranked Board Certified Behavior Analyst pass
rates of any online ABA master’s program
• Ph.D.-level instructors in all courses
• Conceptual and practical coursework
• International collaboration
• Publish, present and pursue your professional goals
all with close faculty support
For more information email: ccsaba@stcloudstate.edu
http://scsu.mn/aba-grad
7
VOL. 1 / NO. 3
Often the basic and applied domains seem as though a large chasm
separates the two. But each has something to inform the other. In
From the Lab, we take work done in the basic domain and show how
it applies to treatment, conceptualization, and everyday life.
FROM THE LAB
Benjamin N. Witts / St. Cloud State University
Your Token Board Needs Some Work
Assessing Conditioned Reinforcement
token board, it’s likely that both
criteria—good behavior and learning—are met. But we must remember that even poor reinforcement
can result in good behavior and acquisition, particularly with children
who have a history of responding to
tutor demands. We often attribute a
generally-compliant way of being to
instructional control, and this might
have more to do with a history of
punishment for not responding or
responding inappropriately than it
does with the quality of reinforcement. In other words, children learn
to do as they are told, or else.
There are many ways to determine
if some stimulus is reinforcing.
However, the practitioner, often
faced with a very demanding work
environment, must sacrifice months
While we may not have the luxury
of articulate, repeated reinforcement
assessments in our practice, we can
draw from work that does have that
luxury. Starting in 1969, Edmund
of well-controlled experimental
work for a more pragmatic approach. In a sense, the practitioner
just wants to know if something
works as reinforcement, and this is
often proven by seeing good ontask behavior and progress toward
skill acquisition. In our two-colored
Fantino published early work just
what makes conditioned reinforcement reinforcing. This work culminated in the delay reduction theory
(DRT). DRT states that, all things
being equal, the more powerful
conditioned reinforcers are those
that are more highly correlated
A student recently brought to my
attention a twist to the typical
token economy that she used in a
clinic where she works with young
children diagnosed with autism
spectrum disorders. The twist,
which I reveal in a moment, was so
well-received by staff that it became
company policy to alter the way
token boards were developed at
the site. Historically, this clinic had
been using tokens of the same color
to mark progress toward some putative reinforcement. However, it was
argued that by changing the color
of the final token, that final token’s
effectiveness would be enhanced.
For example, if a child was working
for 5 tokens to earn computer time,
the first four tokens would be yellow with the fifth token blue. The
rationale was that the blue token
While the blue token might be
more valuable in terms of reinforcement efficacy, this twist to the token
board will actually make the yellow
tokens less valuable than if all tokens were yellow! The 50-year-old
idea that leads us to this conclusion
is based on Edmund Fantino’s
work on delay reduction, and I will
recount some of his work to help
illustrate why it’s better to use all
yellow tokens than to switch up the
colors.
would be more reinforcing than the
yellow, adding an additional reward,
making the token board more effective and fun for the client.
There was a major flaw with their
idea, however, and it relates to work
started nearly half a century ago.
8
VOL. 1 / NO. 3
FROM THE LAB
with a reduction in time to some
Perhaps it’s best if we review what
only one conditioned reinforcer
primary reinforcement. For examis essential about DRT through
is presented. The reason? If both
ple, most employees prefer 4:50pm
Lewis Gollub’s 1958 thesis (as cited tandem and chain schedules start
over 1:30pm as 4:50pm is more
and recounted in Fantino, 2008).
with a white key, the chain schedclosely related to leaving (assumIn his study, Gollub arranged two
ule’s white key essentially says, “Hey
ing a 5:00 end to the workday).
equal chained schedules to obtain
buddy, you got a ways to go to get
Note that the clock
reinforcement!” Alin itself need not be
ternatively, the tanreinforcing, but its
dem’s white key says,
“powerful conditioned reinforcers are those
value as a potential
“Hey, this might be
that
are
...
correlated
with
a
reduction
in
reinforcer changes
the one that leads
with time. Consider,
to reinforcement!”
time to ... primary reinforcement.”
too, a young child’s
Get it?
behavior as a favorite
holiday season apSo what’s wrong
proaches. First a change in outdoor
food. Both schedules required
with the Blue Token?
temperature, then festive decorapigeons to complete five FI 1
tions go up, then holiday shows
minute schedules to earn access to
There’s actually nothing wrong with
and movies come on television, and
food. One schedule was a tandem
the blue token on its own. Howfinally wrapped gifts are found to
schedule, which simply means that
ever, the blue token is the token
congregate around a slowly dying
all five FI components were acthat best predicts reinforcement is
conifer. Each of these elements
companied with the same colored
coming. Under this preparation,
just described helps to predict that
key light (discriminative stimulus).
blue tokens are good, and yellow
the opportunity to open gifts is
In the chain schedule each FI
tokens are indicators that the blue
approaching, and the culminating
component had a different colored
token, and thus reinforcement, are a
effect, here on an interval schedule,
key light. So in the chain schedule
ways off. In other words, the yellow
might produce some adjunctive
the light might switch from white
tokens predict a period void of
behavior in the child. The point is
to red, then blue, then green, and
reinforcement. Tokens should be a
clear, I hope: we tend to like those
so forth. The tandem would reform of conditioned reinforcement,
things that tell us it’s almost time
main the same, perhaps just white
and here it borders on conditioned
for reinforcement.
throughout. Pigeons by far prefer
punishment! n
the tandem schedule, even though
Fantino, E. (2008). Choice, conditioned reinforcement, and the Prius effect. The Behavior Analyst, 31, 95-111.
Fantino, E. (1969). Conditioned reinforcement, choice, and the psychological distance to reward. In D. P. Hendry’s (Ed.) Conditioned reinforcement. Homewood,
IL: The Dorsey Press
9
VOL. 1 / NO. 3
Sometimes learning a scientific language can be just as difficult, if not
more so, than learning a foreign language. Our Verbal Behavior explores
some of the intricacies of our scientific language with an emphasis on
developing correct stimulus control over each term covered.
OUR VERBAL BEHAVIOR
Benjamin N. Witts / St. Cloud State University
Discriminating Discriminative
Stimuli
I have a fun exercise I conduct with
my incoming master’s students
(well, fun for me, anyway). I ask
them to list several discriminative
stimuli (SD; pronounced es-dee)
and I write them on the marker
board. For example, students might
say that a keyboard is the SD for
typing, or that a headache is the
SD for getting aspirin. Then, we
systematically eliminate roughly
80% of the examples as they are not
truly SDs. While the exercise helps
students to realize that they’re in
the right place—as they’ve got a
lot to learn—it’s a bit disturbing to
realize that so many students, many
of whom have been practicing behavior analysts for years, don’t know
how to identify a discriminative
stimulus.
Misconceptions about SDs
When I survey my students, I get a
typical “definition” of discriminative
stimuli that equates to something
like, “A discriminative stimulus is a
stimulus that occasions a response.”
Here ‘occasion’ refers to a cause. So
the belief is that a discriminative
stimulus causes a response. Were
this to be true, then discriminative
stimuli would better fit in a respondent analysis. Recall that respondents, and their reflexive base, stand
in a close relation where often a
particular stimulus causes a particular response (though that analysis is,
perhaps, simplistic).
Some students will counter that
an SD is really just a stimulus that
makes a response more likely. This
definition is a bit closer to what an
SD really is, but it lacks the necessary features of discriminative
stimuli. Here the students tend to
confuse prompts and motivating
operants with SDs. Prompts often
refer to antecedent stimuli that help
to promote a weak, incomplete, or
low-probability response to production. Prompts are used when
an organism needs a bit of help
in producing the correct response.
Motivating operations alter reinforcement effectiveness, giving rise
to responding that produces such
reinforcement.
Of course, my sample is biased
here as I only turn to my students.
However, given that definitional
errors similar to what I’ve pointed
out here appear in popular texts,
peer-reviewed journal articles, and
other outlets like blogs, discussion boards, and Facebook posting
exchanges, I suspect they are rather
common. So what, then, is a discriminative stimulus?
Defining the Discriminative
Stimulus
Jack Michael (2004; pp. 59-65)
provided a clear definition of discriminative stimuli, and it’s the one
I use here. A discriminative stimulus is a stimulus that, when present,
results in an increase in the rate
of a particular response (or class).
While this sounds like the prompt
described above, some caveats come
with the SD.
First, the SD gains its status as the
10
VOL. 1 / NO. 3
product of a history of differential
reinforcement. Here responding is
reinforced in its presence, but not
in its absence. When responding
occurs in its absence, an extinction
schedule is in effect. When present,
stimuli that signal the differential
unavailability of reinforcement are
call S∆s (es-delta). For example,
while typing this, my Internet connection has gone out. I know this
because an icon with an exclamation mark in a small yellow triangle
on my status bar lets me know that
attempts to access the Internet will
not be met with reinforcement. In
this case, the icon is an S∆ for accessing the Internet. When the icon
is removed and I’m left with a series
of bars indicating access to the
Internet has returned, my responses
with respect to the Internet will be
reinforced (thus, these bars are an
SD for accessing the Internet).
Second, the SD is only effective
under appropriate motivating
operations. This second caveat is
important, as this requires that the
organism would respond in the
absence of the stimulus if reinforcement were likely. Thus, the SD
signals the differential availability
of a particular reinforcer given the
response and related motivating operation. In the example above with
the Internet connection, I find that
I have need to access the Internet
to check on important emails. Thus,
responding with respect to the
Internet is highly probable in both
cases. However, if I was focused on
writing this article, access to the
Internet might be distracting and I
OUR VERBAL BEHAVIOR
Benjamin N. Witts / St. Cloud State University
would find its use of no reinforcing
value. In this latter case, I care for
neither icon, as I would not find
need to use the Internet (and thus
neither has discriminative properties at that time).
Inherent in this definition is a third
caveat; the SD does not differentially restrict responding (cf. Malott,
2008; pp. 217-218). Keeping with
the Internet connection example,
the icons do not restrict my attempts to check email (the response
in question). Instead, the icons have
unique histories of reinforcement
with respect to the response in
question and its related reinforcement. In other words, I can check
my email all I want; it’s only under
some conditions that this response
is reinforced.
This might seem like a lot to consider, but it’s actually quite simple
to determine if a stimulus is a discriminative stimulus. I’ve provided
a quick yes/no diagram to help you
determine SD status.
Now that you know just what a
discriminative stimulus is, don’t
be surprised if you find professors,
colleagues, and even authors in
peer-reviewed journal articles calling all manner of antecedent stimuli
“SD” when they meant something
else. n
REFERENCES
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Edgewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
11
VOL. 1 / NO. 3
S
R+
RECOGNITION
From: Jonathan Derby
Recognizing: Sara Eggers
Your commitment, engagement, and perseverance with these kids is awe-inspiring. I’m grateful and thankful to
have you in my life as a colleague, educator, and partner. Thank you!
From: Benjamin Witts
Recognizing: “The Lab”
It is certainly not said enough how much joy I derive from the challenge that is working with the best and brightest students. With a more-than-full teaching load, infant twins at home, and other university duties, I perhaps do
not take time to address my appreciation for helping to make me a better scientist through our time together. I am
so excited to be part of your development, and I am so eager to see how far you go!
Is there someone whose behavior you want to SR+? Then let us
know and we’ll feature it in our next issue for the world to see!
Submission Instructions:
• Limit your SR+ to 450 characters or less (including spaces)
• Include your full name, the full name or title of the person, program, business, etc., you are SR+ing
• Provide specifics what your SR+ is for, descriptive feedback is the most effective
• Email Daniel Reimer to submit your SR+ at di.reimer@yahoo.com
12
VOL. 1 / NO. 3
On Feeling Stupid: An Open Letter to My Fellow Students
BENJAMIN N. WITTS
ST. CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY
Benjamin Witts is an assistant professor in the Applied Behavior Analysis master’s program at SCSU. He specializes
in gambling and infant sleep concerns
Background
Being a behavior analyst is not an
easy job. At least, it’s not an easy job
when you want to be a really good
behavior analyst. There are many times
in our lives where we are faced with
challenges that produce a great deal of
frustration and upset with ourselves.
For many of us, these frustrations are
first met when we begin graduate
coursework. While we might recall
the challenge that was negative reinforcement vs. positive punishment
during our undergraduate coursework
or on-the-job training, that challenge
pales compared to the insurmountable
workload that comes with MA and
PhD work. We might be required to
read during undergraduate courses
and regurgitate what was read on
a quiz, but now we find ourselves
having to understand and apply our
coursework. The point is this: transitions are difficult, but they can be
wonderful. This editorial comments
upon a common experience many students have when they transition from
“competent” to “amazing.” During
this transition, students might find
themselves feeling frustrated, which
might in turn lead to feeling stupid.
A Stupid Definition
The Oxford English Dictionary (Stupid, n.d.) offers several definitions for
stupid. The one that pertains to the
current editorial is as follows: Wanting in or slow of mental perception;
lacking ordinary activity of mind;
slow-witted, dull. Surely this definition has a derogatory meaning, and
for the layperson that is probably true.
But in science, feeling stupid, at least
as per this definition, is a wonderful
thing. When you experience feelings
of stupidity, you should embrace them.
I would urge you to, as I do, feel happy
whenever you feel stupid.
There is a very good reason for embracing one’s feelings of stupidity. Consider the conditions under
which we would tact such an emotional response, and realize that those
conditions involve an organism who
is undergoing change. This change
consists of either producing some previously absent response or replacing
a response in which you previously
engaged. It will be wise for me to clarify these two conditions, and offer a
personal example of each.
In the former condition we are faced
with a problem as Skinner defined
it (see Skinner, 1953). In this case, a
problem is an occasion upon which
some response (R1) would be produced if available, but currently is not.
Such feelings of stupidity under these
conditions can come close to emotional responses that tend to occur with
frustrating situations, such as with
some extinction preparations. Any response that makes R1 possible is considered a solution. The problem, then,
is that R1 is not available, which is in
some way aversive to the individual. In
my earlier research I faced a problem
in that I could not execute the correct
13
VOL. 1 / NO. 3
formulas for obtaining discounting
functions, and thus I felt stupid. Having read and reread numerous articles,
I could not get the curves to compute
properly. The solution consisted of
collaborating with a colleague, and R1
(calculating the discounting curves)
was then made more likely. After R1
was produced, I no longer felt stupid.
It was here that I was finally able to
calculate the curves, though it required
some assistance.
In the latter condition, we find that
previously-produced responses—given the opportunity now—would not
be produced in favor of some other
response, even if that other response
is not responding at all. As an example of response replacement, I
work as an assistant professor in a
master’s program in applied behavior
analysis, and as such I am expected
to know a great deal of my subject
matter (though expectations and performance don’t necessarily match!). I
have written on, supervised projects
on, and taught courses on verbal behavior. Thus, when having suggested
to a student to work on a thesis regarding thematic and formal prompts
in error correction procedures, I found
myself struggling with questions of
how pictorial prompts work in relation to formal and thematic prompting of vocal-verbal behavior. With
much arrogance or ignorance—I’m
not sure which—I foolishly ignored
the suggestions from her practicum
supervisor that the picture prompt is
thematic, as I had misread
Skinner’s (1953) definition of formal
prompts. Somehow I had convinced
myself of an alternative definition
which led me to state, rather confidently I might add, the pictorial prompt was formal, rather than
thematic. Realizing something was
not right about my analysis, I sent a
Embarrassing? Absolutely!
So I ended up feeling stupid on two
fronts from this episode: 1) in having
professed an incorrect definition of
formal prompts to my student, and 2)
for having believed that I should have
the answer because I am the professor.
Two mistakes I will
never make again.
Of course, I have
many more examples I could use here,
but I’m afraid they
are too numerous
and would belabor
the point. But they
remind me of something I hear often
from students and
early-career professionals: “I should
know that.” But
we shouldn’t know
anything. We know
what we know, and
when we don’t know,
we should feel stupid (but recall that
we should enjoy
feeling stupid).
Embracing Stupidity
post to a listserv (an email discussion
group) where many prominent behavior analysts, many my behavioral
heroes, proceeded to “educate” me
on my ignorance. Educational? Yes.
The young scientist
asks, “Why on earth
should we want to
feel stupid?” and the learned colleague
replies, “What a stupid question.” Stupid, in the sense that I am describing
it here, relates to an opportunity to
transition, to grow, to learn. But feel-
ing stupid is more than just learning;
it is a special circumstance related to
learning in which one fails to find
the change aversive, or at least not so
aversive that the change is resisted.
The difference between holding to
old ways of thinking despite contrary
evidence and allowing the change to
occur is the difference between being
stupid (cf. Goldiamond, 1965) and
feeling stupid. He or she who feels
stupid evolves.
Feeling stupid, then, is to be pursued.
Feeling stupid means you are solving problems and becoming a better
scientist and practitioner. Feeling
stupid means that you are growing
and becoming more than you were
yesterday. Feeling stupid, and loving it,
safeguards from curmudgeonly ways
of thinking and allows us to stand in
defiance of our scientific forefathers
and say, “You are wrong. And someday,
I will be wrong.” Feeling stupid is at
the very heart of what it means to be
a scientist.
In my title I write that this is a letter
to my fellow students. I am, however, no longer a student in the typical
sense. But because I can find myself
feeling stupid, I consider myself to
still be a student. I plan on being a
student until I die, and I would encourage my fellow students to join
me in retaining that status. We have
among us many students in the field,
and many of them earned their PhDs
before I was even born. Being stupid
is perhaps the greatest feeling I have
experienced, and I anticipate I will
continue feeling stupid for quite some
time. n
References
Goldiamond, I. (1965). Self-control procedures in personal behavior problems. Psychological Reports, 17, 851-868.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Oxford, England: Macmillan.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Stupid [Def. 3]. (n.d.). In OED Online, Retrieved September 28, 2015, from http://www.oed. com/view/Entry/192218?redirectedFrom=stupid&.
14
VOL. 1 / NO. 3
The Potential Role of Stimulus Control on Recidivism
ERINN LARKIN
ST. CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY
Erinn Larkin is originally from Bismarck, ND. She is currently
working on her Master’s degree in Applied Behavior Analysis
at St. Cloud State University.
Imprisonment was not always the primary means of dealing with criminal
activity in the United States. For instance, as Barnes (1921) pointed out,
punishment during Colonial times
was met with outcomes like floggings
and death, with prisons being relegated to those who owed some debt (i.e.,
debtors’ prisons). In the late 18th century, the United States began moving
toward prisons being reserved for dangerous or severe criminal behavior. The
role that prisons played in working
with the incarcerated changed over
time, at some points being concerned
with punishment, rehabilitation, or
education (cf. Skinner, 1953).
used in the Elmira Reformatory in
1869, the act of regularly scheduled
meetings between the ex-convict and
some appointed guardian began to
spread across the prison system (Abadinsky, 1994).
Parole Systems
Currently, 35 states make use of one
of two parole systems (see Abadinsky, 1994; Batten, 2013). In the first
system, the independent model, a
non-state agency serves as the parole
board, whereas in the consolidation
model the commissioner of corrections supervises the board (Abadinsky, 1994). Regardless of model, the
A painting of the
Elmira Reformatory, which opened
in 1876 with the
purpose of rehabilitating criminals.
The question remained, however, as
to how to verify the effectiveness of
the prison system on an offender who
receives early release. Thus, the modern day parole system was born. First
role of the board is to appoint two
to three members to review an inmate’s case and determine if he or she
has been rehabilitated to the point
of becoming a successful member of
15
VOL. 1 / NO. 3
society. As Abadinsky (1994) pointed
out, the parole board accomplishes
its goal by taking into account prior arrest history, the crime that led
to the current incarceration, behavior in prison, time currently served,
and may even interview the inmate,
victim, and the victim’s family prior
to reaching a decision. Additionally,
inmates can increase their chances of
being granted parole by engaging in
prosocial behaviors while in prison
such as earning a GED, signing up
for prerelease living skill classes, and
getting a driver’s license, among other
activities. If the parole board reaches
a consensus that the inmate has been
rehabilitated, the inmate is free as of
the determined release date and
subject to the board’s terms of
parole.
The terms of parole vary by
offender, but there are two
general classes of parole conditions (Scott-Hayward, 2011).
Standard conditions involve the
parolee meeting regularly with
a parole officer, obtaining and
maintaining employment, and
following restrictions on travel, typically limiting travel to
within the confines of the community
in which the original crime was committed. Special conditions encompass
standard conditions with the addition of random drug screenings and
potentially mandatory rehabilitation
sures proper drug testing, adherence to
meeting schedules, and
that the parolee remains
in the appropriate area,
with many of these activities being conducted
randomly.
Recidivism
services.
Upon release, though sometimes
when first incarcerated, the offender is
assigned to a parole officer. To become
a parole officer, one must hold some
relevant degree, often a bachelor’s degree, in a field such as sociology, criminal justice, corrections, or counseling
(Abadinsky, 1994). The parole officer
is responsible for assisting the parolee in locating employment, housing,
and social supports (e.g., alcoholics
anonymous), and works to involve
the parolee’s family with meeting the
expectations required of the parolee
after release. In addition to providing
various supports, the parole officer en-
Of those prisoners who
receive early release, and
thus are paroled, approximately 67.8% are arrested and reincarcerated
within three years, and
76.6% within five years
(Durose, Cooper, & Snyder, 2005). Considering
that paroling an individual costs approximately
$5 per day per parolee
(Zhang, Roberts, & Callanan, 2006), and that,
for example, in 2005 over
400,000 individuals were
paroled (Durose et al.,
2005), it becomes apx1klima / FLICKR
parent that the need for
an effective parole system to justify
the costs is needed. The problem of
recidivism, then, remains a prominent
one, both to the parolee and the community that financially supports it.
In 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated
the city of New Orleans, Louisiana.
More than 400,000 people were dis-
placed and had to relocate to different
parts of the city, the state, and the
country (Geaghan, 2011). Among
those displaced were parolees that
had been released from Louisiana correctional facilities. The recidivism rates
of those parolees who were displaced
were lower than parolees who returned
home during that period (Kirk, 2009).
This leads one to question why this
happened. The answer may be found
in the behavioral principle of stimulus
control.
Stimulus control is defined as “a situation in which the frequency, latency,
duration, or amplitude of a behavior
is altered by the presence or absence
of an antecedent stimulus” (Cooper,
Heron, & Heward, 2007, p. 705).
For example, all things being equal,
green lights tend to evoke responses
related to accelerating while red lights
evoke responses related to decelerating (aka braking). To be sure, lights
have no inherent control over driving;
it’s only after a history of differential
reinforcement with respect to accelerating and braking in the presence
of those lights that they come to have
stimulus control. Thankfully for most
drivers, this differential reinforcement
can be experienced verbally and the
stimulus control takes hold prior to
one’s first time driving!
When discussing stimulus control
and recidivism, the environment the
“The point is ... to get us behavior
analysts thinking about how our
principles extend to a broad diversity
of concerns”
16
VOL. 1 / NO. 3
offender committed a crime in is sure
to hold some influence over his or her
responding. As a hypothetical example, repeated successfully completed
criminal acts in that neighborhood
reinforced the offender’s criminal
behavior, thus giving the neighborhood stimulus control. When a parolee returns to their neighborhood
upon release, that stimulus control is
still there, increasing the probability
that the parolee will reoffend. In the
case of the parolees relocated after
Hurricane Katrina, they moved to
an environment that did not have a
history or reinforcement with respect
to criminal behavior for them and
the result was a lower recidivism rate
among those parolees. Of course, other
sources of stimulus control are present,
such as individual persons who might
work to make criminal behavior more
likely (e.g., former accomplices) and
other contextual factors like affiliated gang activity. What remains to be
seen, however, is if the idea of stimulus
control could be programmed into
parole systems to help curb potential
recidivism.
A Pilot Stimulus-Control-Based
Parole Program
A pilot program, designed by behavior
analysts, that works in conjunction
with an existing parole system could
be the answer to recidivism concerns.
I will attempt to describe a potential pilot program in the hopes that
a larger conversation is born from it.
Behavior analysts would work with
parole boards and officers in two counties within the same state separated
by at least 250 miles. A parolee exchange would take place between the
two counties where selected parolees
from one county would be released
into a different county, and vice versa. The idea behind this being that if
there is no history of reinforcement
for criminal behavior in the new location, the parolee is less likely to
reoffend. There are obvious concerns
with public safety so parolees would
be selected by the parole board based
on certain criteria. Parolees would
have to be low-risk offenders, have
their GED, and have no immediate
family, or their family would have to be
willing to relocate. Additional criteria
may include successfully completing
living-skills classes and addiction
counseling where applicable.
Conditions for the parolees would
be decided by the parole board, but
would include the standard conditions: finding a residence, gaining and
maintaining employment, limiting
travel to a set area, and abstaining
from substance abuse. The parolees
would also be responsible for attending weekly meetings with their parole
officer. Any occurrence of criminal
behavior would result in the parolee’s
termination from the program and
their reincarceration.
Of course this pilot program is a bit
light on the details. The point is not to
solve the recidivism problem here, but
to get us behavior analysts thinking
about how our principles extend to a
broad diversity of concerns. I believe
that we can make a large impact on
recidivism rates with a program similar to the one thus described. n
References
Abadinsky, H. (1994). Probation and parole in the United States. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Barnes, H. E. (1921). Historical origin of the prison system in America. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 12, 35-60.
Batten, D. (2013). Criminal law. In Batten, D. Gale encyclopedia of everyday law
Cooper J.O, Heron T.E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Chapter 17. Applied behavior analysis (2nd edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Durose, M. R., Cooper, A. D., & Synder, H. N. (2005). Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010 (pdf, 31 pages). Bureau of Justice
Statistics Special Report, April 2014, NCJ 244205.
Geaghan, K. A. (2011). Forced to move: An analysis of Hurricane Katrina movers. Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics Division, US Census Bureau.
Kirk, D. S. (2009). A natural experiment on residential change and recidivism: Lessons from Parole and Probation System for United States Courts, U.S.C. § 1054 (1920).
Scott-Hayward, C. S., (2011). The failure of parole: Rethinking the role of the state in reentry.
New Mexico Law Review, fall, 1-15.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Oxford, England: Macmillan.
Zhang, S. X., Roberts, R. E., & Callanan, V. J. (2006). The cost benefits of providing community-based correctional services: An evaluation of a statewide parole program in
California. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 341-350.
17
VOL. 1 / NO. 3
Julie Ackerlund Brandt, Editor
A Behavioral
Approach to Sex
Offender Therapy
Kevin Funkhauser
Middletown, PA. – The treatment of sex offenders has become
a subject of debate as to what is
considered fair and just, but more
importantly, what approaches
are effective in the prevention or
rehabilitation of sex offenders.
It has become evident that sex
offenders require a more rehabilitative model of dealing with their
behavior if there is any hope of
saving the individuals from themselves and protecting society. Sex
offenders are distinguished from
normal functioning humans due to
their attraction to deviant stimuli.
Deviant stimuli would be categorized as any sexual imagery or
conduct involving a minor, fetishes,
or conduct that is not consensual.
Rehabilitating a sex offender requires controlling or mitigating the
effects of deviant stimuli.
The purpose of applied behavioral therapy in regards to sexual
offenders is to regulate behavior
by decreasing problematic behaviors and subsequently increasing
more appropriate behaviors. For
that to be possible, certain techniques have been used in an effort
to mitigate the deviant behavior.
Such techniques have included
exposing the individual to alternative behaviors in the presence of
deviant stimuli as a means of dis-
traction, such as singing, counting,
and solving simple mathematical
equations to suppress the sexual
arousal response (Reyes, 2011).
Participants in such studies had
mixed results that were difficult to
maintain.
Sex offender therapy is a relatively
new concept, and is not exactly
popular among the public due to
the belief that the treatment is
ineffective. Valiant attempts by
therapeutic programs at diminishing sexually deviant behavior
have proved to not be a permanent
solution to the issue because these
programs are only designed to
replace the problematic behavior
with other behaviors instead of
eliminating it. This has not been
the case with applied-behavioral methods which have shown
consistent results of a reduction
in sexually deviant behavior. It is
imperative that both mental health
and criminal justice professionals
become more open-minded to the
idea of applied behavioral analysis
when dealing with sex offenders
and sexual deviates. Together they
can formulate a united effort to
identify sexual deviancy among
certain individuals and acquire
the necessary skills to treat the
problematic behavior before it gets
worse. n
References
Reyes, J.R., Vollmer, T.R., & Hall, A. (2011).
The influence of presession factors in the assessment of deviant arousal. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Analysis, 44, 707-717.
18
VOL. 1 / NO. 3
Is Problem Behavior All
That Bad?
Sara Cagle
University of North Texas
Many children demonstrate problem behaviors such as tantrums,
aggression, and disruption. Many
of behaviors are considered normal;
however, if they persist or occur at
an increased frequency or intensity,
they may interfere with the development of appropriate social and
communicative behavior (BriggsGowan, Carter, Bosson-Heenan,
Guyer, & Horwitz, 2006; Campbell,
Shaw, & Gilliom, 2000). Therefore,
early assessment and treatment of
problem behavior is essential, but
only a small amount of studies have
completed functional analyses using
typically developing children as
participants.
Greer, Neidert, Dozier, Payne, Zonneveld, and Harper (2013) conducted a functional analysis of problem
behaviors with typically developing
children within their preschool
classrooms. They validated their
FA results by implementing treatment-based interventions for each
participant. The participants were
four, typically developing children
who engaged in higher levels of
problem behavior (i.e., aggression
and property destruction) relative to
their peers. An important addition to this study was that sessions
took place in the child’s classrooms
during regularly scheduled activities
and not in a separate, more-con-
trolled environment. Each sessions
lasted 10 minutes and data were
collected on the frequency of aggression, property destruction, and
independent mands.
The functional analysis consisted of
four test conditions (ignore, attention, demand, and tangible) and one
control condition (play) all arranged
in a multi element design (Greer et
al., 2013). The authors used different colored shirts, different therapists, presession statements describing session conditions, and fixed
order presentation of conditions
to increase saliency of the conditions. Results of the functional
analysis were that problem behavior
was maintained by social positive
reinforcement for all subjects. More
specifically, social positive reinforcement in the form of attention
for three participants and attention
and tangibles for one participant.
Treatments consisted of differential
reinforcement (DRA) combined
with extinction or time out. A
reversal design was used to evaluate
treatment for participants with one
function (attention), and a multiple
baseline across functions design
was used to evaluate the effects of
treatment for one participant.
The results of Greer et al. (2013)
were that DRA plus EXT was
effective in maintaining low rates
of behavior for one of three participants whom had one function
to problem behavior; however,
low rates of problem behavior and
consistent mands were observed
during DRA plus timeout for the
two remaining participants. Unfortunately, when DRA plus time out
was implemented by the classroom teachers, it was not effective.
Although, addition of prompting
and feedback for Missy’s & Jim’s
teachers did produce increases in
treatment integrity, and there was
a decreased rate in problem behav-
iors. For the final participant, DRA
plus time out resulted in decreased
aggression and high rates of mands
for tangible items.
Although these results do suggest
an FA can be conducted within a classroom, there are several
limitations. DRA plus EXT was
likely ineffective for most participants due to insufficient exposure
to extinction and degradation in
treatment integrity. Outside uncontrolled sources of influence may
have also played a role. FAs are
hard to accomplish especially when
they are required to have multiple
design arrangements. This may not
be feasible in most early childhood
classrooms; however, modified FA
methods such as a brief, trial-based,
or precursor analysis might be more
feasible. Greer et al. (2013) was a
good starting point for conducting
a FA in a more naturalistic setting, yet the results did not show a
clear improvement when a function-based intervention was implemented. However, it is a great start
for many future research projects. n
References
Greer, B. D., Neidert P. L., Dozier, C. L., Payne,
S. W., Zonneveld, K. L. M., & Harper, A. M.
(2013). Functional analysis and treatment of
problem behavior in early education classrooms.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 289295.
Briggs-Gowan, M., Carter, A. S., BossonHeenan, J., Guyer, A. E., & Horwitz, S. M.
(2006). Are infant-toddler social-emotional and
behavioral problems transient? Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 45, 849-858.
Campbell, Susan B., Shaw, Daniel S., Gilliom,
Miles. (2000). Early externalizing behavior problems: Toddlers and preschoolers at risk for later
maladjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 467-488.
19
VOL. 1 / NO. 3
Preferences for and
Reinforcing Efficacy
of Different Types of
Attention
Mary Halbur
St. Cloud State University
We’ve all heard it: “there is just
something about Jonny,” “for some
reason, the kids all like Suzie.” We
all understand this, as we all have
favorite professors, bosses, and
friends; however, we don’t know
why this happens. Jerome and
Sturmy (2008) conducted preference assessments to identify staff
members who were preferred and
nonpreferred for three adults with
developmental disabilities. Following the preference assessments,
they conducted reinforcer assessments and found that all three
participants worked harder (e.g.,
to higher breakpoints) with the
preferred staff as compared to the
level of work with they completed
with nonpreferred staff. This was
an interesting assessment; however,
there was not an evaluation of a
possible mechanism for the preferences for specific staff members.
One reason this preference may
develop may be associated with
the type of attention provided by
that staff member or therapist as
opposed to the type of attention
provided by others.
Previous researchers have demonstrated that different types of
attention (i.e., eye contact, praise,
physical, conversation, and reprimands) affect an individual’s
responding differentially (e.g.,
Kodak, Northup, & Kelly, 2007;
Fisher, Ninness, Piazza, Owen-DeSchryver, 1996), and some
types of attention (i.e., praise,
physical attention, and conversa-
tion) are more preferred and/or
reinforcing than others (e.g., Clay,
Samaha, Bloom, Bogoev, & Boyle,
2013; Nuernberger, Smith, Czapar,
and Klatt, 2012). Kodak et al.
conducted two functional analyses with children with Attention
Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder to
evaluate this phenomenon. The
first was a functional analysis with
four conditions (e.g., attention,
demand, alone, play) to determine
whether attention was a maintaining variable. For the two participants for which this was the case,
they conducted another functional
analysis which consisted of various
attention conditions in which different types of attention (e.g., eye
contact, reprimand, tickles, unrelated comments, praise, & physical
attention) were provided. They
were able to demonstrate that certain types of attention maintained
problem behavior at higher levels
than other types of attention.
children with autism have distinct
preferences for certain types of
physical-attention interactions.
There have also been studies in
which researchers have evaluated
the preference for and reinforcing
efficacy of different types of attention with appropriate behaviors.
Nuernberger et al. included various
types of physical interactions in a
preference assessment, and evaluated whether they functioned
as reinforcers for children with
autism. Similarly, Clay et al. assessed preferences for other types
of social interactions using preference and reinforcer assessments.
Both studies evaluated a package
of social interactions with multiple
types of physical attention paired
with playful vocal statements.
Both studies were able to show
that participants displayed preferences for certain types of physical
interaction, and these preferences corresponded to the levels
of responding in the reinforcer
assessments. This may mean that
References
Given that researchers have been
able to develop preference hierarchies for different types of attention, and show that these types of
attention have differential reinforcing efficacy for both problem
behavior and appropriate behavior,
it is possible that if an individual
consistently delivers a preferred
type of attention, whereas another delivers a non-preferred type
of attention, an individual may
develop a preference for that individual based on those interactions.
Some interesting extensions of
this research would be to evaluate
whether preference hierarchies
for different types of attention are
consistent across therapists, and if
the type of attention delivered by
therapists affects client and student
preferences for them. n
Clay, C. J., Samaha, A. L., Bloom, S. E., Bogoev, B. K., & Boyle, M. A. (2013). Assessing
preference for social interactions. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 34, 362-371.
Jerome, J., & Sturmey, P. (2008). Reinforcing
efficacy of interactions with preferred and nonpreferred staff under progressive-ratio schedules.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41,
221-225.
Kodak, T., Northup, J., & Kelley, M. E. (2007).
An evaluation of the types of attention that
maintain problem behavior. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 40, 167-171.
Nuernberger, J. E., Smith, C. A., Czapar, K. N.,
& Klatt, K. P. (2012). Assessing preference for
social interaction in children diagnosed with
autism. Behavioral Interventions, 27, 33-44.
Lattal and Wacker
Host Special Issue on
Recurrence of Operant
Behavior
20
VOL. 1 / NO. 3
Volume 41, number 2 of the Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis
(Revista Mexicana de análisis de la
conducta) is a special issue celebrating current work on recurrence
in operant behavior. Recurrence
comes in many forms, but the
essential element that connects all
recurrence is that some behavior,
once eliminated through extinction
procedures, comes back to some
degree on a future occasion (Lattal
& Wacker, 2015).
While every article in this special
issue is enlightening, to say the
very least, two articles stand out
as being particularly important
for practitioners. First, Claire St.
Peter outlines six reasons why
practitioners should know about
resurgence. Resurgence is a type
of recurrence in which some
response—we will call it Response
A—is put on extinction. Following
extinction on Response A, another
response—Response B—is extinguished and during this procedure
a resurgence of Response A is seen.
Dr. St. Peter draws parallels between the study of resurgence and
common intervention patterns that
practitioners carry out. For example, it is not uncommon for a team
working with a young child to
need to extinguish several responses subsequently, which could lead
to a resurgence in the responses
earlier extinguished. Dr. St. Peter
even highlights those times when
someone might actually want
resurgence to take place!
In the same issue, Keith Lit and
F. Charles Mace (Lit & Mace,
2015) highlight the importance of
translational research between the
experimental analysis of behavior and applied behavior analysis.
With recurrence related to treatment relapse as their focal point,
Lit and Mace outline the limits
of a technology-driven field by
demonstrating how basic research
can supply additional analyses
to problems of treatment failure.
For example, relapse in recovering
drug addicts might be hampered
through the use of alternative
activities in environments in
which drug use formerly occurred.
While the experimental research
in animal models offers several
advantages in control (e.g., history, contextual factors), behavior
analysts have not been ones to shy
away from extending animal work
to the human condition.
entire behavior change programs.
The remainder of the special issue
is thought-provoking. One must
appreciate the delicate nature
of behavioral intervention. The
average practitioner undoubtedly
understands that timing is everything when it comes to reinforcing appropriate behavior, but this
special issue helps to highlight the
importance of timing and other
related factors when scheduling
Lattal, K. A., & Wacker, D. (2015). Some
dimensions of recurrent operant behavior. Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis, 41, 252-268.
n
Lit, K., & Mace, F. C. (2015). Where would
ABA be without EAB? An example of
translational research on recurrence of operant
behavior and treatment relapse. Mexican Journal
of Behavior Analysis, 41, 269-288.
The entire issue can be downloaded through http://rmac-mx.org/
The digest accepts reviews of journal articles of interest to behavior analysts. Review articles should be written in the active
voice and be understood by non-behavioral readers. Typically, digest articles are written in the “newspaper style” with catchy
titles, location of the story, and frequent use of action words and phrases.
- Limit all digest articles to 500 words or fewer
- Do not include graphical reprints from the journal article
- Articles must be published in the last 5 years
- Include full reference in APA style
- No more than 3 references per article
Submit your Digest article to the digest editor at jaackerlundbrandt@stcloudstate.edu
By submitting your article for consideration to BAQ, you agree to BAQ’s right to alter your article’s text, primarily grammar, to fit its current needs.
21
VOL. 1 / NO. 3
Let your message
reach a global audience
of Behavioral Analysts.
For advertising inquiries please contact
benjamin.witts@gmail.com
22
VOL. 1 / NO. 3
baquarterly.com