Association for Behavior Analysis International

ABA Business Meeting

Behavior analysis has had a hard time penetrating the mainstream of psychology since the rise of cognitive psychology. The two primary barriers underlying this problem are a lack of clarity and understanding of the philosophical core of radical behaviorism, and the need for a comprehensive and experimentally adequate account of language and cognition. The first is primarily a terminological problem that is rectified by functional contextualism; the second is an empirical and theoretical problem that is rectified by Relational Frame Theory. With these two barriers removed, there is nothing to prevent behavior analysis from capturing center stage in many areas of psychology, but the form of behavior analysis results is decidedly post-Skinnerian -- that is, true to the Skinnerian tradition philosophically and empirically, but distinct in its approach to complex human behavior as a consequence of empirical developments. The empirical and political success of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy is offered as a concrete demonstration of the success of this strategy. Other possible extensions are briefly explored.

Behavior analysis once supported a rich tradition of studying aversive control, that is, behavior change through punishment or negative reinforcement. A variety of factors have shifted our contemporary emphasis -- almost exclusively -- to the study of positive reinforcement. This status quo is most easily justified for service delivery (especially with vulnerable populations) in which we are concerned about excessive reliance on aversive control and the side effects that this can cause. I will argue, however, that our collective disregard for the study of aversive control has left us in an untenable position, both scientifically and practically. Where science is concerned, the past three decades have seen important advances in the understanding of positive reinforcement for which no parallel insights exist regarding aversive control. Moreover, scientists outside of our field have revealed robust aversive-specific phenomena that behavior analysts have largely ignored. Our silence about these effects allows them to be explained within, or even seen as evidence for, nonbehavioristic theoretical frameworks. Where practice is concerned, a lack of new behavior analytic data on aversive control may suggest that we have nothing to say on the topic. As a consequence, perhaps, policy makers and others seeking consensus on issues like corporal punishment may not consult our field for guidance. Moreover, because aversive control is ubiquitous in the everyday world, it is difficult to see how a thorough analysis of socially important behavior can proceed without a proper understanding of aversive control. For instance, emerging notions about aversive control may generate counterintuitive treatment predictions that cannot be reached by thinking about positive reinforcement alone. In summary, the world out there encompasses, and is fascinated by, aversive control, and we should be motivated to reanimate our tradition of studying it.

Please join us, your friends, and colleagues in the field for music and dancing at the ABA Social. Live music early on and a disc jockey later in the evening will be on hand to play a wide variety of tunes for all ages. A cash bar will also be available.