Experimental Analysis Of Human Behavior Research Articles

The Status of Rule-Governed Behavior as Pliance, Tracking and Augmenting within Relational Frame Theory: Middle-Level Rather than Technical Terms

A recent systematic review has highlighted that the terms “pliance,” “tracking,” and “augmenting” have rarely been used as the basis for conducting systematic experimental-analytic research since their conception in 1982, despite their theoretical centrality to the study of rule-governed behavior and their presumed impact on psychological suffering. Given that some time has passed since the review article, it may be useful to reflect again upon their place within the literature on the experimental analysis of human behavior, and relational frame theory in particular. As such, the current article constitutes a “position piece” rather than another formal systematic review. In reviewing (informally) the literature since the systematic review, the recent emergence of psychometric research involving these concepts could be seen as reinforcing the original conclusions, in that researchers are recognizing that pliance, tracking, and augmenting may be of limited value in the experimental analysis of human behavior. Instead, the concept of rule-governed behavior itself, as well as the subcategories of pliance, tracking, and augmenting, should be considered middle-level terms, which lack the relative precision of more technical terms within the literature on relational frame theory.

Technological advances in the experimental analysis of human behavior.

The experimental analysis of human behavior (EAHB) involves the study of basic operant and respondent phenomena with human subjects and is a well-established proving ground for exploring behavioral principles and processes that may be difficult to study in applied settings. EAHB has significant impl

言語行動の実験的分析としての刺激等価性 : 成人を被験者とした般化と転移のパラダイム( 人間行動の実験的分析)

言語行動の実験的分析としての刺激等価性 : 成人を被験者とした般化と転移のパラダイム( 人間行動の実験的分析)

A ANÁLISE DO COMPORTAMENTO HUMANO EM CONTEXTO*

Deve-se inferir do nome deste grupo de interesse especial, “A Análise do Comportamento Humano”, que aqueles que analisam o comportamento de animais humanos devem se constituir em um grupo separado dos que analisam o comportamento de animais não humanos? É o uso de não humanos em experimentos irrelevante para a análise do comportamento em humanos? Se assim é, alguma coisa deve ter mudado. Muitas diferenças existem, é claro, entre o comportamento de humanos e de não humanos – humanos, por exemplo, não podem voar por si sós – mas detectamos diferenças de princípios, diferenças essas que requeiram organizações separadas para seu estudo? Vou tentar mostrar porque acredito que essa é uma preocupação séria, de onde ela surge, e o que, talvez, possa ser feito para manter o que era, outrora, uma florescente relação bidirecional entre a pesquisa com humanos e com não humanos, tanto na pesquisa básica como na pesquisa aplicada.Palavras-chave: pesquisa comportamental com humanos, pesquisa comportamental com não-humanos.*Traduzido por Maria Silvia Ribeiro Todorov

The analysis of human behavior in context

Does the name of the special interest group, "The Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior," imply that those who analyze the behavior of human animals must organize themselves apart from those who analyze the behavior of nonhuman animals? Is the use of nonhumans in experiments really not relevant to the analysis of the behavior of humans? If so, then something must have changed. Many differences exist, of course, between the behavior of humans and nonhumans-humans, for example, cannot fly under their own power-but have we really isolated differences in principle, differences that require separate organizations for the study of each? I will try to indicate why I believe this is a serious concern, where the concern comes from, and what, perhaps, might be done to maintain what was once a flourishing bidirectional relation between research with humans and nonhumans, in both basic and applied research.

Skinner boxes for psychotics: Operant conditioning at Metropolitan State Hospital

Between 1953 and 1965, Ogden Lindsley and his associates conducted free-operant research with psychiatric inpatients and normal volunteers at Metropolitan State Hospital in Waltham, Massachusetts. Their project, originally named "Studies in Behavior Therapy," was renamed "Harvard Medical School Behavior Research Laboratory" in 1955. This name change and its implications were significant. The role of the laboratory in the history of the relationship between the experimental analysis of behavior and applied behavior analysis is discussed. A case is made for viewing Lindsley's early work as foundational for the subfield of the experimental analysis of human behavior that formally coalesced in the early 1980s. The laboratory's work is also contextualized with reference to the psychopharmacological revolution of the 1950s. Finally, a four-stage framework for studying the historical and conceptual development of behavior analysis is proposed.

Neither dark age nor renaissance: Research and authorship trends in the experimental analysis of human behavior (1980–1999)

The anniversary of several milestones in the experimental analysis of human behavior (EAHB) provides a prompt for updating previous surveys of EAHB publication trends, which portrayed the field's overall health as good but raised questions about its breadth and trajectory. For the years 1980 through 1999, we examined trends in annual frequency of data-based EAHB articles published in the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (JEAB); in the topical emphasis of those EAHB articles; in the geographic region of origin of EAHB articles; and in the relative contributions of new and veteran authors. Our findings show continued productivity in the field, but contradict an earlier report by showing little sustained growth in EAHB over roughly the past 15 years. In terms of authorship, an increasing proportion of EAHB articles are authored by veteran investigators, although the field also benefits from a steady infusion of new authors. International participation in EAHB is limited, with most EAHB research originating in North America. In terms of content, our findings replicate those of previous reports in showing stimulus control and reinforcement and punishment to be the field's most commonly addressed research topics, although content emphases apparently differ across regions of origin. Overall, the data depict EAHB at the close of the 20th century as a multifaceted enterprise, one that is neither bankrupt nor at its full potential for contributing to the overall analysis of behavior. We close with some observations on the value of this type of archival research and some suggestions for improving the archival characterization of the field.

Sources cited most frequently in the experimental analysis of human behavior

We conducted an analysis of the sources cited most frequently in primary empirical reports in the experimental analysis of human behavior (EAHB) published in four journals between 1990 and 1999. Citation patterns suggest that modern EAHB is topically focused and relatively independent of both animal operant research and human research conducted outside of behavior analysis.

Reply to Dougherty: On Measuring Content Diversity in the Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior

Dougherty (this issue) has thoughtfully examined our contention (Hyten & Reilly, 1992) that the experimental analysis of human behavior (EAHB) is healthy and growing rapidly. However, his data on the number of papers in nine content areas suggest that the recent growth has been in only selected areas. We agree that some content areas (e.g., stimulus equivalence) have dominated recent EAHB work, but we feel compelled to comment on the analysis of content diversity in EAHB. Dougherty used data from a topical bibliography (Dougherty, Nedelmann, & Alfred, 1993) that classified articles into the nine content areas that were originally outlined by Buskist and Miller (1982a, 1982b) in their topical bibliography. Data compiled from these bibliographies show what appears to be a wide gap between the most investigated topic areas and the least (Dougherty's Figure 3), and that growth in the last decade has occurred in only three ofthe nine content areas (his Figure 4). However, we believe that the classification scheme itself may not accurately reflect the content diversity within EAHB. For example, the classification scheme mixes narrow content areas such as continuously programmed environments with broader categories such as reinforcement. The top three areas represented in Dougherty's Figure 3 (reinforcement, stimulus control, and general schedule performance) are all more generic than the three lowest content areas, which are more restricted in their content (programmed environments, coopera-

The Selective Renaissance of the Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior

Two recent articles (Dougherty, Nedelmann, & Alfred, 1993; Hyten & Reilly, 1992) have favorably appraised the growth and health of the experimental analysis of human behavior as a whole. Within the last decade alone, there has been a more than threefold increase in the percentage of human operant papers appearing in the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. In the present paper, a more molecular analysis is used, and some concerns are raised about the overall health of the field. The analysis included a determination of the rate at which new authors have appeared, how several areas of research have grown, and a contrast between the proportion of papers appearing in each of several areas of research during the last two decades. Two primary concerns are raised in this paper: (a) The recent growth within the field has been in only three select research areas (general schedule control, reinforcement, and stimulus control), and (b) there is an increasing disparity between the number of papers published in the few areas of research receiving the most attention and the number of papers published in the other areas of research receiving the least attention. Although the experimental analysis of human behavior has made considerable progress in the mere number of publications, these publications have been somewhat limited in scope.

The Renaissance of the Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior

Ten years ago, a number of authors commented on the dismal state of the basic research area known as the experimental analysis of human behavior (EAHB). At that time, data on the number of research articles using human subjects published in the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (JEAB) indicated little progress since the early 1960s. However, updated publication data through 1991 reveal that EAHB research has accelerated in the last decade, reaching a peak of nearly half of all research articles published in JEAB, with an increasing trend evident. The increase in this percentage is not due solely to a long-term declining trend in the total number of experimental articles in JEAB using either human or nonhuman subjects, a trend that appears to have slowed or stabilized in the last 6 years. These data indicate that the EAHB has made dramatic progress in a decade and is healthy and growing.

THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of BehaviorVolume 54, Issue 3 p. 159-162 THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR Douglas J. Navarick, Douglas J. Navarick CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY AT FULLERTONSearch for more papers by this authorDaniel J. Bernstein, Daniel J. Bernstein UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKASearch for more papers by this authorEdmund Fantino, Edmund Fantino UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO CO-EDITORS OF SPECIAL ISSUESearch for more papers by this author Douglas J. Navarick, Douglas J. Navarick CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY AT FULLERTONSearch for more papers by this authorDaniel J. Bernstein, Daniel J. Bernstein UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKASearch for more papers by this authorEdmund Fantino, Edmund Fantino UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO CO-EDITORS OF SPECIAL ISSUESearch for more papers by this author First published: November 1990 https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1990.54-159Citations: 7AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Citing Literature Volume54, Issue3November 1990Pages 159-162 RelatedInformation

The Virtues of Scientific Psychology: A Reply to Harzem

Harzem recently expressed the opinions that, beginning in the 1960s, the progress of scientific psychology has been deferred and that psychological research has failed to address important social issues. He proposed that progress be resumed by taking up, anew, the experimental analysis of behavior. The present reply provides evidence inconsistent with Harzem's assertions regarding the state of contemporary, scientific psychology and questions the wisdom of disregarding the significant body of data and theory that currently are available to pursue the, as yet, unfulfilled promises of the experimental analysis of human behavior.

Laboratory Lore and Research Practices in the Experimental Analysis of Human behavior

Growing interest in experimental analyses of human behavior has augmented the importance of describing its "laboratory lore" and research practices. "Laboratory lore" refers to the informal and miscellaneous collection of facts, assumptions, and techniques regarding the conduct of experimental research. This series of papers describes the laboratory lore and research practices of experimental analysts of human behavior. Topics include selecting subjects, designing session logistics, developing instructions, selecting reinforcers, and using subjects' verbal reports. These descriptions are offered as a step toward developing improved procedures for conducting research with human subjects.

Laboratory Lore and Research Practices in the Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior: Use and Abuse of Subjects’ Verbal Reports

Laboratory Lore and Research Practices in the Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior: Use and Abuse of Subjects’ Verbal Reports

Laboratory Lore and Research Practices in the Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior: Selecting Reinforcers and Arranging Contingencies

Laboratory Lore and Research Practices in the Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior: Selecting Reinforcers and Arranging Contingencies

Laboratory Lore and Research Practices in the Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior: Subject Selection

Laboratory Lore and Research Practices in the Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior: Subject Selection

Laboratory Lore and Research Practices in the Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior: Issues in Instructing Subjects

Laboratory Lore and Research Practices in the Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior: Issues in Instructing Subjects

Laboratory Lore and Research Practices in the Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior: Designing Session Logistics—How Long, How Often, How Many?

Mylaboratory research hasattempted togeneralize principles derived fromresearch withdiscrete, brief responses such askeypressing tomorenatural examples ofhumanbehavior suchasreading, sewing, andartwork. Asapartofthis process, somevariations onconventional experimental practice haveemerged in myresearch andinthat donebyothers whoanalyze humanbehavior. Thisessay presents strategies foradapting procedural conventions towhatever human behavior istheobject ofstudy. Criteria forselecting length, frequency, andnumberofsessions arediscussed inthat order, along withsomelimitations inherent in humanresearch. Someoftheimplications ofthis lore aremostuseful with naturalistic repertoires, butsuggestions forall humanoperant research aremade aswell.

The Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior: History, Current Status, and Future Directions

These papers were presented at a symposium held at the 93rd annual convention of the American Psychological Association, August, 1985, Los Angeles, CA. The papers, in order, address the following topics: the history of operant research with human subjects with particular attention to the type and quantity of research conducted since the mid-1950s; interpretation versus experimentation in the experimental analysis of human behavior (EAHB) with particular emphasis on rule-governed behavior; the historical and current roles of children as subjects in operant research; the relation between basic laboratory research with humans and applied behavior analysis; and the need for future research concentrating on complex human behavior. Each of these papers is discussed in the final section of the proceedings.