The Behavior Analyst

2012, 35, 275–276

No. 2 (Fall)

Upon Further Reflection Commentary on ‘‘What Happened to Analysis in Applied Behavior Analysis’’ (Pierce & Epling, 1980) W. David Pierce University of Alberta Our 1980 paper arose from seminar discussions about basic and applied behavior analysis occasioned by Sam Deitz’s (1978) article in the American Psychologist. Frank and I complained that the ABA meetings and the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA) at that time seemed to be less concerned with contingencies of reinforcement (basic science) and more focused on clinical issues of treatment, helping clients, evaluation, and outcome. We decided to compile some evidence on the behavior of applied behavior analysts, using Volume 11 (1978) of JABA as our source. After coding articles and references in this volume, we found that the actual analysis of behavior was at low levels while cure or help behavior was flourishing. Armed with this evidence, Frank and I wrote the article in hopes of increasing the analysis in applied behavior analysis. We submitted the paper to Julie Vargas, the editor of The Behavior Analyst at the time. Julie said that the paper had merit, but believed it to be contentious (especially the section on JABA as the Journal of Applied Law of Effects, p. 6) and would never pass the review process, at least not as written. She made an editorial decision to accept the manuscript with few editorial changes, and published it on her own assessment. I think the article is remembered because it documents the ‘‘flight to Address correspondence to the author at the Department of Sociology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2R3, Canada (e-mail: [email protected]).

real people’’ and the beginning of the separation between applied behavior analysis and the experimental analysis of behavior. It also outlines some of the contingencies that support this trend, including funding for cure or help research and jobs for behavioral technicians. I also think that readers liked the title of the article and appreciated the tongue-in-cheek humor and exaggeration of our arguments. In his response to our article and several other papers on the issue (Deitz, 1978; Hayes, 1978; Hayes, Rincover, & Solnick, 1980; Michael, 1980), Don Baer (1981) acknowledged the technical drift of applied behavior analysis, but suggested this was a positive and natural progression of the field—moving from the laboratory to the applied setting. Since Frank and I wrote this paper more than 30 years ago, the field of applied behavior analysis has continued to drift in the technical and clinical direction, possibly due to the powerful monetary contingencies we identified in the 1980s. In 1998, applied behavior analysts established the Behavior Analysis Certification Board ‘‘to meet professional credentialing needs identified by behavior analysts, governments, and consumers of behavior analysis services’’ (http://www.bacb. com/index.php?page51). Although credentialing exams include some testing of basic principles, many behavioral practitioners have few ties to basic laboratory research with nonhuman animals. Without these links, practitioners do not appreciate an experimental analysis of behavior; they

275

276

W. DAVID PIERCE

emphasize treatment, assessment, and outcome more than explicit analysis of the contingencies. One possible consequence of this state of affairs is that many behavioral interventions may not replicate over settings, behaviors, clients, and therapists. Another consequence is that applied research seldom uncovers the basic principles that control human behavior and is therefore less likely to contribute new knowledge to our science. Today, behavioral practitioners have become an increasingly prominent and influential faction in the Association of Behavior Analysis International (ABAI), especially those in the treatment of autism and developmental disabilities. Some basic researchers, perhaps as a response to this growth in practice, have established the Society for Quantitative Analysis of Behavior (SQAB) with their own meetings that occur in conjunction with the ABAI annual convention. Behavioral practitioners have also identified their specialized interests and formed the Association of Professional Behavior Analysts with the objectives of providing support, resources, and education

to certified behavior analysts while promoting the practice of behavior analysis to federal, state, governmental and third party agencies. My own assessment is that the separation between basic and applied behavior analysis that Frank and I noted in 1980 has become even wider today. The good news is that behavioral approaches to treatment are more acceptable in our culture; the bad news is that analysis continues to suffer in applied behavior analysis. REFERENCES Baer, D. M. (1981). A flight of behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 4, 85–91. Deitz, S. M. (1978). Current status of applied behavior analysis: Science versus technology. American Psychologist, 33, 805–814. Hayes, S. C. (1978). Theory and technology in behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 1, 25–33. Hayes, S. C., Rincover, A., & Solnick, J. V. (1980). The technical drift of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 275–285. Michael, J. (1980). Flight from behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 3, 1–22. Pierce, W. D., & Epling, W. F. (1980). What happened to analysis in applied behavior analysis? The Behavior Analyst, 3, 1–9.