|
| Sharpening our Behavior-analytic Concepts: Ethics, PBS, and "Everything" |
| Sunday, May 27, 2007 |
| 1:30 PM–2:50 PM |
| Cunningham AB |
| Area: TPC |
| Chair: Richard W. Malott (Western Michigan University) |
| |
| The Roots of the Behavior Analysts’ Code of Ethics: From Hippocrates to the Behavior Analyst Certification Board. |
| Domain: Theory |
| CARL CONKLIN (University of Kansas), Edward K. Morris (University of Kansas) |
| |
| Abstract: Nowhere is there a comprehensive history of events that preceded and led to the formation of the Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB) and subsequently to the BABC Guidelines for Responsible Conduct. However, many articles describing the history of behavior analysis focus on specific events or time periods. Johnson and Shook (1987), for example, provide an account of the 15-year history leading to the development of a state-level behavior analyst certification program but a comprehensive history is lacking. History is important because it provides the background that defines where we came from and the basis of understanding why we are where we are today. By being aware of the history of our professional ethics, coupled with our commitment to the human condition and the field of behavior analysis, we will better understand the current environment of the field. This paper provides that historical background for professional behavior analysts, students of behavior analysis, and those in related fields. |
| |
| Everything You Know About Behavior Analysis Is Wrong. |
| Domain: Theory |
| RICHARD W. MALOTT (Western Michigan University) |
| |
| Abstract: 1. You can’t reinforce or punish organisms.
2. You don’t express things.
3. Penalties aren’t extinction.
4. You don’t extinguish escape behavior by turning off the shock.
5. The shock in an escape contingency isn’t an SD.
6. The cue in cued avoidance isn’t an SD.
7. You don’t extinguish avoidance behavior by turning off the shock or buzzer.
8. Traditional differential reinforcement doesn’t shape behavior in the natural environment.
9. Sr =/= CS.
10. Not all contingencies have SDs.
11. The operandum isn’t the SD.
12. You can’t differentially reinforce other behavior (DRO).
13. Schedules of reinforcement suck.
14. Gambling has nothing to do with VR schedules.
15. Applied behavior analysts do DRL wrong.
16. Respondent conditioning is just operant conditioning in drag.
17. Paychecks don’t reinforce working.
18. Procrastination has nothing to do with failure to delay gratification.
19. Without religion, we atheists would flush the world down the toilet.
20. Stimulus generalization is usually irrelevant to transfer of training and maintenance.
But, these are just my humble opinions; and I might be wrong, though probably not.
(For more info, go to http://www.dickmalott.com/behaviorism/notes/youknowwrong/) |
| |
| Applied Behavior Analysis and Positive Behavior Support: Is There Really a Difference? |
| Domain: Theory |
| JANET A. BUTZ (Collaborative Autism Resources & Education), Stephen B. Mayville (Odyssey Charter School), Chris Holcomb (Odyssey Charter School), Carie L. English (University of South Florida), Rose Iovannone (University of South Florida/Florida Mental Health) |
| |
| Abstract: There is a strong debate in the literature and among professionals concerning the use of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) and Positive Behavior Support (PBS). The presenters have identified some of the differences in the two approaches to behavioral support. Traditional behavior approaches primarily focus on changing the student's behavior and use strategies that target behavior reduction or elimination. Conversely, PBS has a broader focus and uses strategies that modify the context in which behavior occurs and the goal is to replace problem behavior with a functionally equivalent behavior using multi-component interventions.
Case studies will be provided detailing how a team utilizing the PBS process addressed problematic behaviors in two students with challenging behaviors. The same students were also observed by a behavior analyst who developed treatment plans. The two approaches used for addressing problem behavior in each student will be compared and contrasted.
The ultimate goal of this session is to allow professionals to develop an appreciation regarding the commonalities we share in relation to our beliefs about behavior as well as develop an understanding of the philosophical differences we may encounter as we work together to improve the quality of life of our clients in a socially meaningful way. |
| |
|
| |