The Behavior Analyst

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 109–114 | Cite as

The Renaissance of the Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior

  • Cloyd Hyten
  • Mark P. Reilly
Article

Abstract

Ten years ago, a number of authors commented on the dismal state of the basic research area known as the experimental analysis of human behavior (EAHB). At that time, data on the number of research articles using human subjects published in the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (JEAB) indicated little progress since the early 1960s. However, updated publication data through 1991 reveal that EAHB research has accelerated in the last decade, reaching a peak of nearly half of all research articles published in JEAB, with an increasing trend evident. The increase in this percentage is not due solely to a long-term declining trend in the total number of experimental articles in JEAB using either human or nonhuman subjects, a trend that appears to have slowed or stabilized in the last 6 years. These data indicate that the EAHB has made dramatic progress in a decade and is healthy and growing.

Key words

experimental analysis human behavior trends human operant research humans 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baron, A., & Perone, M. (1982). The place of the human subject in the operant laboratory. The Behavior Analyst, 5, 143–158.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron, A., Perone, M., & Galizio, M. (1991). Analyzing the reinforcement process at the human level: Can application and behavioristic interpretation replace laboratory research? The Behavior Analyst, 14, 95–105.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Buskist, W. F. (1983). Introduction. The Psychological Record, 33, 451–456.Google Scholar
  4. Buskist, W. F., & Johnston, J. M. (1988). Laboratory lore and research practices in the experimental analysis of human behavior. The Behavior Analyst, 11, 41–42.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Buskist, W. F., & Miller, H. L. (1982). The analysis of human operant behavior: A brief census of the literature: 1958–1981. The Behavior Analyst, 5, 137–141.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Dinsmoor, J. A. (1991). The respective roles of human and nonhuman subjects in behavioral research. The Behavior Analyst, 14, 117–121.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Fantino, E. (1988). Editorial. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 1–2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Hake, D. F. (1982). The basic-applied continuum and the possible evolution of human operant social and verbal research. The Behavior Analyst, 5, 21–28.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Hayes, S. C. (1987). Upward and downward continuity: It’s time to change our strategic assumptions. Behavior Analysis, 22, 3–6.Google Scholar
  10. Hayes, S. C. (1989a). Nonhumans have not yet shown stimulus equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 385–392.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Hayes, S. C. (Ed.). (1989b). Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  12. Hayes, S. C., Zettle, R. D., & Rosenfarb, I. (1989). Rule-following. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.), Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control (pp. 191–220). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lattal, K. A., McFarland, J. M., & Joyce, J. H. (1990). What is happening in psychology of learning courses? The Behavior Analyst, 13, 121–130.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Lowe, C. F. (1979). Determinants of human operant behaviour. In M. D. Zeiler & P. Harzem (Eds.), Advances in analysis of behaviour: Vol. 1. Reinforcement and the organization of behaviour (pp. 159–192). Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. McIlvane, W. J., & Saunders, K. J. (1991). Editorial. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 9, 19–20.Google Scholar
  16. McIntire, K. D., Cleary, J., & Thompson, T. (1989). Reply to Saunders and to Hayes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 393–396.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Michael, J. (1982). Distinguishing between discriminative and motivational functions of stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 149–155.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Miller, H. L. (1983). More than promissory? Reflections on the once and future experimental analysis of human behavior. The Psychological Record, 33, 551–564.Google Scholar
  19. Navarick, D., Bernstein, D., & Fantino, E. (1990). The experimental analysis of human behavior. Journal of the Experimental A nalysis of Behavior, 54, 159–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nevin, J. A. (1982). Editorial. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 1–2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Saunders, K. J. (1989). Naming in conditional discrimination and stimulus equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 379–384.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Sidman, M., Rauzin, R., Lazar, R., Cunningham, S., Tailby, W., & Carrigan, P. (1982). A search for symmetry in the conditional discrimination of rhesus monkeys, baboons, and children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 23–44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Sidman, M., & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: An expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 5–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Vaughan, M. (1989). Rule-governed behavior in behavior analysis: A theoretical and experimental history. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.), Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control (pp. 97–118). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vaughan, W. (1989). Reply to Hayes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 397.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cloyd Hyten
    • 1
  • Mark P. Reilly
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Behavior AnalysisUniversity of North TexasDentonUSA

Personalised recommendations