Pigeons and Children: What Are the Differences?

The Fuzzy Concept of Applied Behavior Analysis Research

A seven-dimension framework, introduced by Baer, Wolf, and Risley in an iconic 1968 article, has become the de facto gold standard for identifying "good" work in applied behavior analysis. We examine the framework's historical context and show how its overarching attention to social relevance first arose and then subsequently fueled the growth of applied behavior analysis. Ironically, however, in contemporary use, the framework serves as a bottleneck that prevents many socially important problems from receiving adequate attention in applied behavior analysis research. The core problem lies in viewing the framework as a conjoint set in which "good" research must reflect all seven dimensions at equally high levels of integrity. We advocate a bigger-tent version of applied behavior analysis research in which, to use Baer and colleagues' own words, "The label applied is determined not by the procedures used but by the interest society shows in the problem being studied." Because the Baer-Wolf-Risley article expressly endorses the conjoint-set perspective and devalues work that falls outside the seven-dimension framework, pitching the big tent may require moving beyond that article as a primary frame of reference for defining what ABA should be.

Toward an explicit analysis of generalization: A stimulus control interpretation

Producing generality of treatment effects to new settings has been a critical concern for applied behavior analysts, but a systematic and reliable means of producing generality has yet to be provided. We argue that the principles of stimulus control and reinforcement underlie the production of most generalized effects; therefore, we suggest interpreting generalization programming in terms of stimulus control. The generalization programming procedures identified by Stokes and Baer (1977) are discussed in terms of both the stimulus control tactics explicitly identified and those that may be operating but are not explicitly identified. Our interpretation clarifies the critical components of Stokes and Baer's procedures and places greater emphasis on planning for generalization as a part of training procedures.