Association for Behavior Analysis International

Contingency management is based on the principles of positive reinforcement and has been used to improve a variety of health-related behaviors. In this talk I will review two NIH-funded trials on using contingency management to improve attendance at a secondary prevention program (cardiac rehabilitation) among patients enrolled in Medicaid. In the first trial, contingency management was tested for improving attendance at cardiac rehabilitation against a control condition. In the second trial, we tested the effects of contingency management, case management (informed by the community reinforcement approach), and their combination, on improving attendance. I will review the effects of contingency management on cardiac rehabilitation attendance across the two trials as well as comment on selected secondary outcomes of clinical interest such as improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness, changes in anxious and depressive symptomology, and hospitalizations. Additionally, I will share initial findings about the benefits of adding case management to the contingency management model.

Experimental/Applied/Clinical/Health

Motivational Interviewing (MI) has been used by clinical psychologists, social workers, licensed therapists, and others in the helping professions for many years. More recently, some behavior analysts have started using this strategy in their research and MI workshops have been offered to behavior analysts, although behavior analysts rarely receive the requisite training other types of licensed professionals receive prior to becoming licensed. The purpose of this talk is to (1) introduce the audience to the basic components of MI, (2) discuss behavioral principles that are compatible with MI strategies and that help us understand why and how MI might be effectively used, and (3) identify settings, populations, and conditions, with examples, under which MI might be ethically and effectively used by behavior analysts.

Graduate students, BCBAs, and BCBA-Ds

Behavior analysts have constructed constraints to limit the sorts of behavior that qualify as behavior analytic research. These community standards are primarily methodological in nature. That is, we limit the methods that are acceptable in behavior analytic research. For example, behavior analysts have a strong preference for single-subject research designs. If a study does not feature a single-subject design, then the community is more likely to judge it as non-behavior analytic. Behavior analysts have benefited enormously from the imposition of these constraints. They have helped to focus scientific inquiry within behavior analysis. They have also helped to differentiate behavior analysis from other related disciplines. And critically, the methodological preferences of the behavior analytic community have produced exceptionally strong empirical and conceptual foundations for the discipline. However, it is not clear that behavior analysts are currently taking full advantage of these strong foundations. Our concepts and procedures are now mature, and it is no longer necessary to appeal to methodology to define our discipline. We are in position to benefit from methodological expansion, but have underexploited this advantage for decades. This has been brought into sharper focus by the professionalization of the discipline and an increase in academic interdisciplinarity. In this social context, new kinds research questions become important to behavior analysts. Our traditional methods are not ideal for answering the full range of new questions. Calls for methodological expansion have increased in recent years, and there is evidence that more behavior analysts are starting to heed these calls. The primary purpose of this presentation is to convince listeners of this claim: Methodological constraints limit progress toward better prediction and control of behavior. An age of methodological agnosticism is upon us. Research questions will and should hold primacy over methods. We will answer our questions by whatever methods are best suited to do so, without heeding historical constraints. So freed, we will be able to answer new kinds of questions, better support practitioners, and increase our impact in modern behavioral science.

All behavior analysts

Artificial intelligence and machine learning are currently revolutionizing how we work and interact in our daily lives. In behavior analysis, one specific area of application that shows tremendous potential involves the assessment and treatment of autism. However, behavior analysts have been slow to adopt machine learning algorithms despite their promising nature. This presentation aims to provide a gentle introduction to artificial intelligence and machine learning while discussing potential applications to autism services. First, the invited session will define and describe what are artificial intelligence and machine learning. Then, the talk will cover recent exemplars of machine learning in autism research from the presenter’s work. Some exemplars include the monitoring of treatment progress, the identification of behavioral function, the selection of behavioral interventions, and the measurement of stereotypy. Finally, some benefits and drawbacks of applying machine learning to solve problems of social significance will be discussed. Overall, the presentation should provide a balanced overview of what artificial intelligence and machine learning may do (and not do) to support both practitioners and researchers in autism.

Currently practicing behavior analysts and advanced graduate students

The target audience includes those who are interested in promoting equity through large-scale social changes.

Although scientific endeavors strive to be objective, they are the work of individuals whose unique perspectives and experiences impact their research and interpretations of the world and data. Institutionalized discrimination – based on race, gender, national origin, disability, and socioeconomic position, among others – persists in academic and scientific institutions. Further, such discrimination has created barriers for individuals from minoritized groups to participate in building and adding their perspectives to our science. For the field of behavior analysis to truly “diversify,” we must actively engage in behaviors that foster inclusive and safe learning environments for students, engage in collaborative work, and incorporate culturally responsive research and mentorship practices. This talk will review where we are as a field, showcase exemplars of culturally responsive practices, and propose steps for moving forward.

Students, Researchers, BCBAs

This panel briefly describe the work of Dr. Billy Baum as they discuss how it has influenced their own work and perspectives on Behavior Analysis.

Board certified behavior analysts; licensed psychologists; graduate students.

I obtained my doctorate from Oxford University in 1974, supervised in part by Jock Millenson who had been trained in operant conditioning at Columbia University, New York.  Since then I have been in academic posts in Northern Ireland and have been a full professor since 1986. I published textbooks on behaviour analysis from 1979 to 2002, and some of these remain in print. As well as teaching undergraduate and postgraduate courses, I  have  successfully supervised 50 students  who  have  obtained PhDs  in fields including, experimental analysis of behaviour, applied behaviour analysis, psychopharmacology, behavioural neuroscience, experimental psychology, applied psychology. Three PhD’s were concerned with behavioural strategies to address environmental issues. In 1977 I was co-founder of the group, Behaviour Analysis in Ireland which became a chapter of ABAI. In 2004, the group became the Division of Behaviour Analysis of the Psychological Society of Ireland, and I was the Division chair from 2009 to 2020. I organised the Third European Meeting for the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour in Dublin, Ireland 1999, and have co-organised 15 annual conferences of the Division of Behaviour Analysis from 2007 to 2023. I was on the program committee for the ABAI 11th International conference, Dublin 2022.   In 2014, I was awarded a Doctorate of Science by Ulster University for career research on the experimental analysis of behaviour.  In 2018 I was appointed as a  Fellow, Association for Behavior Analysis International.  From 2014 to 2023, I have given a series of papers on conceptual issues in behaviour analysis (including behavioural accounts of consciousness and the metaphysical basis of behaviour analysis). Recent empirical work is mostly on the application of behavior analysis in mainstream education.  

Dr. Shahan received his Ph.D. in Psychology from West Virginia University in 1998. He was a postdoc at the University of Vermont, and then a Research Assistant Professor at the University of New Hampshire. He was the recipient of the 2006 B.F. Skinner Young Researcher Award and the 2023 Distinguished Contribution to Basic Behavior Analysis Award, both from Division 25 of APA. He is presently a Professor in the Psychology Department at Utah State University. Dr. Shahan’s research focuses on fundamental processes in learning, adaptation, and behavioral regulation with an emphasis on development, testing, and translation of quantitative theories of operant behavior. Much of his research has used animal models to examine how reinforcement and reinforcement-related stimuli contribute to attention, decision making, persistence, and relapse. His research has been supported for more than 20 years by various institutes at NIH including NIMH, NIAAA, NIDA, and NICHD. Dr. Shahan is a Fellow of ABAI and has served as an Associate Editor and Guest Editor for the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, president of the Society for the Quantitative Analyses of Behavior, and chair of the Biobehavioral Regulation, Learning and Ethology study section at NIH. 

A unique characteristic of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) is the possibility of being updated and enhanced according to clinically-relevant conceptualization and research conducted within Relational Frame Theory (RFT). Defusion and self-based exercises are distinctive components of ACT. However, they might be seen as interactions only suitable for individuals with sophisticated verbal repertoires. This presentation will discuss different RFT conceptualizations of the processes involved in defusion and self-based exercises and the empirical evidence obtained from experimental analogs. First, we will present examples of different types of defusion and self-based exercises. Second, different theoretical proposals of the processes involved in these exercises will be discussed. Third, we will review laboratory research conducted to understand defusion and self-based exercises. Fourthly, we will discuss how RFT conceptualization and research could help to improve the efficacy of these types of exercises. Lastly, we will suggest how defusion and self-based exercises can be adapted to individuals with less sophisticated verbal repertoires.

Researchers and practitioners interested in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Relational Frame Theory

Anorexia nervosa is a disorder characterized by the high failure of treatment approaches, both psychological and pharmacological. The low rate of clinical success may be due to a mischaracterization in most commonly used classifications, which implies a therapeutic approach focused on non-nuclear symptoms and delayed diagnosis. Some authors point out that core symptomatology of food rejection and distortions in the body image could develop in late stages and be the result of the neurological affectation of malnutrition, rather than the cause of the disorder. The activity-based anorexia protocol has been widely accepted as an animal model of the disorder and has been used to test possible treatments for anorexia nervosa. There is experimental evidence in activity anorexia suggesting that excessive activity is a crucial factor in the development of the phenomenon. The aim of this presentation is to review the results from animal research using the activity-based anorexia model with an emphasis on the evidence and possible explanatory mechanisms of excessive activity. Results obtained in our laboratory suggest that the combination of food restriction and exercise is the way to develop anorexia. Increased activity is a common foraging response in mammals subjected to food restriction. This activity is expressed more frequently under diet, which facilitates its subsequent increase by mechanisms of reinforcement and induction. It has been proposed that the contingencies established by western culture encourage people to be involved in exercise and diet regimes, which in some individuals may lead to the combination of strong food restriction and hyperactivity, initiating the cycle of anorexia. These results are in line with historical descriptions of the disorder and new clinical and research evidence that reports an excessive physical activity in a high proportion of diagnosed patients. The proposed theoretical view will be based on basic and clinical research data of several studies that point in a similar direction, to propose a framework that can guide future research and clinical approaches to anorexia nervosa.

People interested in behavioral approaches to eating disorders.

Academics, practitioners, animal trainers, dog trainers.