Sidman 2011 PDF - Can Understanding Basic Research Facilitate Practitioner Effectiveness?

JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2011, 44, 973–991 NUMBER 4 (WINTER 2011) CAN AN UNDERSTANDING OF BASIC RESEARCH FACILITATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PRACTITIONERS? REFL...

JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2011, 44, 973–991 NUMBER 4 (WINTER 2011) CAN AN UNDERSTANDING OF BASIC RESEARCH FACILITATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PRACTITIONERS? REFLECTIONS AND PERSONAL PERSPECTIVES MURRAY SIDMAN SARASOTA, FLORIDA I have written before about the importance of applied behavior analysis to basic researchers. That relationship is, however, reciprocal; it is also critical for practitioners to understand and even to participate in basic research. Although applied problems are rarely the same as those investigated in the laboratory, practitioners who understand their basic research background are often able to place their particular problem in a more general context and thereby deal with it successfully. Also the procedures of applied behavior analysis are often the same as those that characterize basic research; the scientist-practitioner will appreciate the relation between what he or she is doing and what basic experimenters do, and as a consequence, will be able to apply therapeutic techniques more creatively and effectively. Key words: basic behavior analysis, applied behavior analysis, scientist-practitioner _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _2 Why Pay Attention to Basic Research? fully. I have no quantitative data to back up this I have pointed out before, in several contexts, point of view, but I believe my own experience is why it is advantageous and even necessary for basic relevant. Before entering the worlds of applied researchers to recognize and value the accom- research and practice, I spent approximately 10 plishments of applied behavior analysts, and to years intensively involved in basic behavioral understand the problems applied workers face research in the laboratory, mostly with nonhu- (e.g., Sidman, 2005, 2008). I believe, however, mans as subjects. Then, almost as soon as I that the relation here is reciprocal; it is also started to work with people who had suffered advantageous to practitioners for them to under- strokes or who displayed severe learning and stand their basic research background and even to other behavioral deficiencies, I realized that the participate in basic research themselves. preceding 10 years had constituted a period of I have found experience with applied research, apprenticeship for me. It turned out to have been too, to facilitate effective behavior-analytic prac- an effective apprenticeship. By applying princi- tice, but I shall stress basic research here because ples and investigative techniques I had learned in I believe that many practitioners may be un- the laboratory, I found that I could communicate aware of its relevance to what they do. Although nonverbally with people who could not speak, applied problems are rarely the same as basic that I could teach the supposedly unteachable, problems investigated in the laboratory or even and that I could often successfully revise ineffec- in the field, practitioners who understand their tive therapeutic procedures. basic research background may often be able to It is probably accurate to characterize the earli- place their particular problem in a more general est of my new activities as translational research context and thereby deal with it more success- (e.g., Mace & Critchfield, 2010), although that term had not yet come into general use. I found This paper was adapted from a presentation at the myself applying basic research principles and Florida Association for Behavior Analysis meeting on techniques to nonlaboratory problems with which October 8, 2010. I had had little or no experience. The success of Address correspondence to Murray Sidman, 3435 Fox those principles and techniques in guiding my Run Road, Unit 347, Sarasota, Florida 34231 (e-mail: [email protected]). applied research and applications has maintained doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-973 their influence on my own behavior ever since. 973 974 MURRAY SIDMAN I quickly came to recognize that the pro- nor a generally applicable solution to the cedures of applied behavior analysis, both behavioral deficiencies that characterized these research and practice, are often the same as boys and others in similar situations. those that characterize basic research. As has It turned out that a more thorough under- been true of my own experience with practical standing of reinforcement permitted us to solve problems, the scientist-practitioner who appre- this problem and to prepare many of the boys ciates the relation between what he or she is for life outside. Skinner’s original research doing and what basic experimenters do as a (Skinner, 1938) had not only demonstrated consequence will be able to apply therapeutic the importance of identifying and applying techniques more creatively and effectively. I do reinforcers but also showed how to create new not take the extreme position that all practice reinforcers (conditioned reinforcers) and how not grounded in basic science is less effective. It to make reinforcers independent of particular is my belief, however, that all practitioners will deprivations and environments (generalized rein- experience occasions on which knowledge of forcers). The creation of new or generalized basic research findings and principles will reinforcers remains a practically untouched area provide solutions to seemingly intractable pro- in modern applied research or practice (but see blems. I shall elaborate on this point later, but Ayllon & Azrin, 1968; Girardeau & Spradlin, the following example may be instructive here. 1961; Hanley, Iwata, Roscoe, Thompson, & Most behavioral practitioners are aware of the Lindberg, 2003). Nor has it received sufficient importance of consequences in determining the attention from basic researchers. The possibilities likelihood of behavior. That was our starting are unknown even to many academically trained point with a group of boys who resided in a behavior analysts, let alone those who perhaps state institution and displayed severe behavioral understand only enough of these basic principles deficits. When we first became acquainted with to pass certification exams. Even at that early them, they were lined up naked around a large stage in our work, however, we had learned bare room, unattended to except when they had enough from both basic and applied research to be cleaned up after urinating or defecating to institute a system in which the boys had to on the floor. (At that time, such a scene was earn tokens with which to buy their candy and common in state residential facilities for people food. We then were able to generalize the with severe behavioral deficiencies. It was easier value of the tokens by teaching and permitting for the largely untrained staff to respond to the boys to purchase many items, activities, emergencies than to take preventive measures.) and privileges that were otherwise unavailable When we started by providing candy as rein- to them. forcers, we quickly found that the boys were This was an instance of basic research laying capable of much more behavior than they ever the groundwork for the enrichment of lives that had displayed before. Within a few months we otherwise would have remained impoverished. I had them dressed, playing games, and taking have had an increasingly strong feeling, howev- part in various learning programs that we er, that the comprehension of basic research by instituted. We accomplished much with just those doing practical work has been diminish- candy and food as reinforcers. ing, that an appreciation of the relevance of Clearly, however, although we did demon- basic research to current practices has become strate the effectiveness of reinforcement in gener- less and less a part of the training of practi- ating and maintaining new behavior, just as we tioners. I wonder, for example, how behavior- had learned in the laboratory, a life based on food analytic practitioners these days would react if I and candy reinforcement was neither a desirable asked, ‘‘Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?’’  PRACTICE AND BASIC RESEARCH 975 Well, most practitioners probably do remem- degrading interpretation of behavioral develop- ber Pavlov. After all, he did initiate the study of ment. For the public, all conditioning is the behavior as a natural science by demonstrating same. It is therefore important that practitioners that the laws of nature apply also to what we do, know enough about the basic research to be able that is, to our behavior (Pavlov, 1927). Still, to counteract this criticism and to educate the what about the potential for behavior-analytic public about what they really are doing. practitioners who have learned only enough to In stressing the differences between Pavlovian pass exams that qualify them for certification? and operant conditioning, I do not intend to Knowledge and understanding of basic behav- belittle Pavlov’s real contributions to our under- ioral science may, to a great extent, be missing standing of behavior. Pavlovian conditioning from the original training of many applied does provide an inadequate account of the crea- workers, even of excellent applied workers. You tion and maintenance of that behavior by means might well ask, ‘‘In what ways does it matter?’’ of which we interact with the world. Such Conditioning. Let us start with Pavlov, who behavior turns out to be the province of operant formulated what has been characterized as a conditioning. Pavlov, however, provided a basis stimulus–response psychology, which since has for understanding the creation and maintenance been criticized widely and generally dismissed as of what we call positive or negative, passionate a mechanical and superficial account of human or cold, emotions and feelings. Emotions and learning. The basic phenomenon that he feelings are, of course, important accompani- discovered and investigated in great detail has ments of operant behavior, but even basic come to be known as Pavlovian conditioning. research has done little to clarify the relations For example, show a dog a piece of steak and between the two. Further discussion of Pavlov- the dog naturally salivates; ring a bell at the ian conditioning in the present context would, same time you show the steak and eventually therefore, provide more distraction than clari- the bell alone becomes conditioned to elicit fication. For that reason, I recommend here that salivation. About 40 years later, Skinner came applied workers become acquainted with Pav- along and showed that new behavior could be lovian conditioning if only so that they can created by providing appropriate consequences, defend themselves and their profession from which were stimuli that did not precede but criticisms that are based on Pavlov’s work rather rather followed responses. Unfortunately, he than on Skinner’s. named his basic procedure operant conditioning. Punishment. The role of punishment is Because of this terminological similarity, the another source of public confusion. Many mis- public did not look into what Skinner actually takenly believe that punishment plays a basic did but instead equated his methodology with role in behavior analysis. ‘‘The carrot or the Pavlov’s. stick’’ is a common metaphor for behavior- Why is it important for a behavior-analytic analytic practice. In fact, behavior-analytic prac- practitioner to know about the differences tice discourages the use of the stick (e.g., between Pavlovian and operant conditioning? Latham, 1994; Sidman, 2000; Skinner, 1953, Isn’t that just a basic research problem? Not 1971). Many practitioners, however, may be quite. I am sure that most practitioners are completely unaware of the basic research on the aware that their work is not accepted universally, devastating consequences of aversive behavioral but many do not realize that the hostility they control, and thus may be unable to explain to encounter is often a result of a widespread mis- others why they go to great lengths to avoid the interpretation of what they are doing. Pavlovian use of punishment (see, e.g., Sidman, 1964). conditioning is widely regarded as a mechanistic, Many years ago, I and several colleagues were 976 MURRAY SIDMAN developing a token economy for a group of new knowledge about the origins and mainte- institutionalized boys with severe intellectual nance of behavior. Since then, the science has deficiencies (Sidman, 1998). At the time, there advanced to such an extent that it would no were no training programs for practitioners, and longer be correct if I were to suggest that by we had to train our own workers from the doing some basic research, you are likely to be beginning. One day, the director of the project in on the start of a significant new scientific asked me to help her with a problem: Would I development. But because of that context, I give a lecture to our young workers and explain immediately was able to experience a new set of to them why they were not to use punishment emotional reinforcers—joy, exhilaration, thrills. in working with the boys? That lecture grew These are the types of reinforcers that the into my book, Coercion and Its Fallout (Sidman, discovery of new knowledge generates (Sidman, 2000). Even with that book, and with the tre- 2007). mendously effective noncoercive teaching tools That is just how I got started. During the developed by Latham, many of today’s applied following 60 or more years, I have learned that workers still may be unable to cite research find- the reinforcers attendant on basic research do ings to justify their noncoercive practices. This not require that one be in on the beginnings of lack of acquaintance with relevant basic research a new science. Nor do they require that the may hinder them from justifying their methods basic research be carried out in a laboratory. to a skeptical public, and may stand in the way of Our research methodologies have developed to their own acceptance. the point where fundamental questions can be answered by translational research and other Reinforcers for Participating in Basic Research behavioral investigations carried out in the Later, I will note some of the reasons why a world outside the laboratory. Some poten- firsthand appreciation of basic research can tially basic areas actually demand nonlaboratory make one a more effective practitioner. Besides studies, as for example, conflict resolution, its potential relevance to practice, however, the coercion-generated countercontrol, and the conduct of basic research also generates immense development and transmission of cultures. reinforcers. Clinical practice, too, can produce Every experiment, whether carried out within reinforcers more general than the specific behav- or outside the laboratory, has the potential to ioral changes that clients show, but clinical generate the thrill of discovery, the personal workers might often be unaware that basic satisfaction of knowing that one has produced research, too, can generate reinforcers that go knowledge that nobody has ever seen before, well beyond the cold, dispassionate numbers that knowledge that may lead others to modify the describe experimental results. Let me give some way they approach problems that they are try- examples from my own experience. ing to solve. For me, that is the bottom line of Younger behavior analysts often ask me why I successful research. When experimental data entered the field in the first place. I have to tell bring about changes in the behavior of others— them that I never did enter the field. There was researchers, practitioners, and sometimes, even no field of behavior analysis to enter; it just did the nonprofessional public—then the research not exist at the time. Not only was applied has been successful. I wish that all new students behavior analysis nonexistent but so was the of behavior analysis experience that kind of basic science. The brilliant seminal work of personal fulfillment while they are in the Skinner was, of course, known, but only a few process of learning how to practice their had begun to follow his lead. So much profession. Whenever and wherever you do it, remained to be found out that almost every- conducting your own research will give you a thing we did in the laboratory produced some whole new slant on behavior analysis. The  PRACTICE AND BASIC RESEARCH 977 experience will help place what you are doing in a more constructive, safer, and more productive context of intellectual achievement much wider social environments. than your own particular accomplishments. The satisfaction an experimenter gains from Now, however, such reinforcers may be such fundamental research is more general than unknown to many practitioners. Young people that from any particular application. In addi- now often may come into the field because they tion, an acquaintance with the basic research have been told it is an easily entered, respect- provides the clinical practitioner with a wider able, and an income-producing profession. In understanding of his or her own place in the addition, the practice of that profession also general scheme of things, and establishes a makes it possible to help to rectify some serious context within which many specific applied and widespread personal and social deficiencies problems can be seen to have characteristics that keep people from living their lives to what- in common. As an elementary example, basic ever levels they might be capable of. Even many research on the reinforcement contingency led of those who enter the profession through directly to the generalization that most, if not academically approved training programs, how- all, behavior is generated and maintained by its ever, might never have the opportunity to carry consequences. This principle leads directly to out research, to add even a small bit to our store the practice, applicable to many examples of of scientifically valid knowledge. They will have clinically undesirable problem behavior: First, missed what I look at as the thrill of a lifetime. find the behavior’s consequences. The widely In addition to becoming involved in basic effective applied principle called functional research and thereby creating opportunities for analysis (e.g., Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, some unique personal satisfactions, an acquain- & Richman, 1982/1994) grew directly from tance with the basic research literature also knowledge gained from basic research on can provide justification for particular lines of reinforcement. applied work, as well as for the methods used in clinical analysis (see Mace, 1994). For exam- Can There Be a Natural Science of Behavior? ple, my own dissertation research and much of For many years, we all did our basic my experimentation during my first 10 post- behavior-analytic research with nonhuman sub- PhD years was concerned with the aversive jects. We were convinced, however, that what control of behavior (e.g., Sidman, 1953, 1966). we discovered with nonhumans in the labora- I started in that field because I already was tory was generalizable also to humans outside convinced that many of people’s personal the laboratory. Eventually, a few brave souls did problems (learning difficulties, conflicts with some studies with human subjects. Those first others, neuroses, depression, hostility, marriage studies turned out so successfully that in spite of failures, school dropouts, and many others) our professed faith in the generality of our come about as a consequence of the almost research, we still were astonished. Many basic universally applied coercive behavioral control researchers then moved into laboratory studies that I saw in the world around me. Although with human subjects. Both inside and outside my research did not address any of those the laboratory, basic and applied researchers particular specific problems directly, it did discovered that the same variables that produced succeed in demonstrating the immense destruc- new behavior inside the laboratory also were tive power of coercive control and its often relevant outside. Practitioners then made the debilitating consequences (Sidman, 2000). With same discovery; they found that, by changing that research as a background, practitioners then consequences and other factors in their patients’ were able to demonstrate that the elimination of environment, they could get their patients to specific kinds of coercion makes for happier, behave differently, even to replace problem 978 MURRAY SIDMAN behavior with adaptive behavior. The behavior sees the sources of conflict in the environment, laboratory turned out to be not an isolated then one can often arrange changes in that domain but rather a part of the real world. environment that will bring about the desired The rejection of self determination. This dis- behavioral changes. Unfortunately, behavior anal- covery, that what people did was determined by ysis so far has come to receive only a grudging what happened in their physical environment, acceptance, and then mainly when it is applied to was a historical development. Those who have those with presumably impaired intelligence, to not themselves experienced the lawfulness of people who are ‘‘incapable’’ of self-determination. behavior within a scientifically valid framework I believe that those involved in basic labo- may not appreciate or even believe it possible. ratory research are more aware of their place in Many people, even thoughtful, intelligent, suc- this major intellectual revolution than are those cessful, scientifically enlightened people, dismiss who have never seen the basic laws of behavior the notion that there can ever be a natural in all their precise and quantitative glory. Such science of behavior. A common belief is that our awareness is, of course, not necessary for suc- behavior is self-determined, that we can negate cessful clinical practice, but it can add consid- any supposed general law of behavior by decid- erably to one’s pride in and satisfaction with the ing to act differently than the law predicts. course of one’s own life. Effective applied behav- In reply to this skepticism, behavior analysts ior analysis does generate its own kinds of advance the notion that current and historical personal satisfaction, but I believe that the events within one’s environment determine appreciation of one’s positive contribution to a whether or not one will decide to act in a major change in our conception of our place in seemingly unpredictable fashion. Such decisions the universe of thought will bring about themselves are determined by the same kinds of additional feelings of fulfillment. That certainly variables that determine other behavior. has been my own experience. I recommend that The rejection of self-determination does everyone try it. require a major reorientation of one’s self- picture. A historical analogy was the belief that Increasing the Effectiveness of Practice the earth is the center of the universe. Many To return to the question of how an under- unbelievers in the centrality of the earth were standing of basic research can increase the tortured and put to death because of their effectiveness of applied behavior analysis, here skepticism. Today, behavior analysts reject the are some relevant examples that I, myself, have centrality of human will as the ultimate deter- experienced and even have played some role in miner of behavior. Although they are not in their development. danger of being put to death because of their Research with individual subjects. You will disbelief in self-determination, they sometimes find that in the laboratory, experimentation are ridiculed, scorned, and worst of all, ignored. takes place with individuals as subjects. Exper- To be ignored is worst of all because it means imental behavior analysis does not require the that many serious human problems might go statistical comparison of experimental and con- unsolved. The notion of self-determination pre- trol groups. Instead of securing a small amount cludes any attempt to change the behavior that of data from each of a large number of subjects defines many particular problems. Conflict reso- and then averaging across subjects, we obtain a lution, for example, requires changes from large amount of data from individuals. Single- conflict to cooperation. If one believes that the subject methodology is fundamental in basic sources of conflict come from within, then one behavior-analytic research; that aspect of the also must confess to an inability to accomplish methodology makes the science immediately any reduction of those sources. If, however, one applicable to behavior therapy, which always  PRACTICE AND BASIC RESEARCH 979 involves attempts to change the behavior of behavioral change had been brought about by individuals. the treatment and not something else. Behav- Many applied behavior analysts never have ioral changes, however, do not always prove to been made aware of this methodological dif- be reversible; once behavior changes, it may be ference between what they are doing and what impossible to return it to its pretreatment state. clinical psychologists usually do. Ignorance of Also, it may be undesirable, even unethical, to the rationale for single-subject methodology return a client to behavior that would be leads to ignorance of the special importance of countertherapeutic. Multiple baselines of vari- some specific techniques on which the validity ous sorts can often resolve the problem of of a therapeutic procedure may depend. For irreversibility of a behavioral change (Baer, example, steady-state baselines are necessary for Wolf, & Risley, 1968). These may involve, evaluating the success or failure of an experi- for example, maintaining simultaneous base- mental or a therapeutic procedure. If you want lines of several different behavioral contingen- to know whether what you have done has made cies for an individual client and then testing a any difference in a particular individual’s beha- therapeutic program by changing one contin- vior, then you must in some way measure that gency at a time. Or one kind of behavioral individual’s behavior both before and after you baseline may be maintained for several clients have applied the treatment. That is what we simultaneously, with a particular therapeutic mean by establishing a behavioral baseline. It is program being instituted at different times for critical to measure the individual’s behavior not each client. Such multiple baseline procedures just after you have applied the treatment, but allow the therapist to determine whether any before, also. Otherwise, how can you not only observed behavioral changes can be attributed prove to others but be sure yourself that what to the therapeutic procedures and not to some you have done has made any difference? Did a uncontrolled factor. change come about because of what you, the You must understand the necessary charac- therapist, did, or would the change have taken teristics of a useful baseline. For example, place even if you had done nothing? it must be stable before you institute your How do you answer this question? Instead of therapeutic procedure. But how do you define comparing a group that has received the treat- stability? If the behavior of concern continues to ment with a control group that has remained show a steady increase or decrease before you untreated, you allow the treated persons to pro- have applied your procedure, then you either vide their own control data. You measure the will be unable to attribute a continuing change behavior of interest before you apply the treat- to anything you have done, or you will be ment and then see whether the behavior changes unable to specify how much change was caused during or after the treatment. Thus, you com- by your therapy. If the baseline shows great pare the same behavior from the same indi- variability, then you may be unable to claim vidual both before and after you apply the that your attempted therapy had any effect at treatment. The pretreatment measurements con- all, although a stable pattern of variability can stitute the baseline. You evaluate the treatment still be useful as a baseline. The need for stable by observing whether it produced changes in the behavioral baselines and for the definition of individual’s baseline. stability is fundamental in experimental behav- It always is reassuring to the experimenter or ior-analytic research. Without a satisfactory practitioner to return to pretreatment condi- specification of stability, colleagues will ignore tions and recover the baseline behavior, which is your findings; you just as well might never have the classic ABA design. Such recovery would done the work. Unfortunately, applied work strengthen the conclusion that the observed often is judged not only by informed colleagues 980 MURRAY SIDMAN but by administrators, publicists, and special changing the location in which the therapy is interest groups to whom considerations of treat- carried out, or changing the therapist, or per- ment validity are unknown, ignored, or irrele- haps presenting test material on a computer vant to their own agendas. It is therefore rather than on the tabletop (or vice versa) might incumbent on practitioners to establish and help. Experimentation on stimulus control has maintain their own high standards. Basic provided lessons that are unknown to most new research on stability criteria is directly relevant behavioral practitioners. to behavior-analytic practice. There is no better This two-way interaction between scientist place than the basic research laboratory in and experimental subject, and between practi- which to become aware of those standards and tioner and client, has given rise to the concept of how to use them to evaluate one’s own work. of the scientist-practitioner. Practitioners who Two-way interactions in research and practice. carefully measure features of a client’s behavior, Experimental behavior analysis consists of two- particularly its frequency but other aspects, too, way interactions between subject and experiment- and who change their treatment procedures in er. Unlike traditional experimental psychology, response to what the client does or fails to do, behavior-analytic methodology calls for changes are themselves doing just what behavioral scien- in the experimenter’s behavior as a function of tists do. For example, if an experimental subject what the experimental subject does. Such flexibil- fails to learn, the experimenter will make such ity also helps make the science compatible with changes as increasing the size of the reinforcers, practice. Effective behavior therapy, too, requires decreasing the delay between behavior and rein- two-way interactions between therapist and client. forcement, checking to determine whether sub- Ideally, the client’s behavior will change in ject and experimenter are attending to the response to therapeutic measures, but some- same stimuli, and making sure that the subject times the client’s behavior does not change already has learned all the prerequisites for the or an observed change may be therapeutically behavior being measured. undesirable. The therapist therefore must know Effective practitioners will do the same. They how to change his or her therapeutic procedures will ask, for example, Was that pat on the head on the basis of what the client does. Successful and the words, ‘‘good boy’’ really a reinforcer? behavior-analytic practice does not depend on a If you are trying to teach a nonspeaking child set of fixed rules or immutable procedures but to point to pictures to indicate what he or she consists of options that the practitioner can wants, have you first made sure that things and apply in response to what the client does. their pictures are equivalent? If they are not When a behavior-analytic treatment fails, it equivalent, how do you make them so? (see, may well be necessary to refine the kind of e.g., Sidman, 2009). Instead of concluding that baseline from which to measure treatment a client is incapable of learning, or that rein- effects. For example, should the therapist be forcement does not work, the behavior therapist concerned just with the frequency of the will check to make sure that the client’s failure undesirable behavior, or should observations to learn was not caused by his or her own (the of when that behavior occurs constitute the therapist’s) failure to teach effectively. Like critical baseline datum? Or it may be necessary laboratory experimenters, effective practitioners to change the consequences applied to the always will start with something a client already client’s behavior; was that reinforcer really a knows how to do and only gradually will reinforcer? Experimentation has taught us how introduce additional requirements, program- to find out. Or might the environmental con- ming the material or the behavior they are trying text be more important than the consequences to teach in such a way that the client can progress of the client’s behavior? If so, such measures as steadily without encountering consistent failures.  PRACTICE AND BASIC RESEARCH 981 In laboratory experimentation, such changes principles we already had learned in the labo- in the experimenter’s behavior are routine. ratory, we were able to institute an effective When I and my colleagues started a program token economy. We used classic response shap- devoted to increasing the behavioral repertoires ing and backward chaining to establish tokens of a group of boys with severe intellectual as secondary reinforcers and to teach the chil- disabilities who resided in a state residential dren how to use tokens to make purchases at a program (e.g., Mackay & Sidman, 1968), we ‘‘store’’ that we set up. (I shall have more to say did what we had learned to do in the laboratory. later about backward chaining.) Using laboratory-derived techniques, we suc- Eventually, we discovered problems that had ceeded in generating new adaptive behavior in never arisen in the laboratory. For example, we boys who had been judged incapable of learn- had to teach the boys that the store was not ing and for whom neglect had left seemingly always open. They had to learn (that is to say, ‘‘behaviorless.’’ Reinforcement generated and we had to teach them) to save tokens and use maintained new behavior. Candies and food them later after they actually had earned them. were quite effective as starters, but truly adap- To teach this, we had to work individually with tive behavior would, of course, require other each boy. We started by giving him a candy for kinds of reinforcers. We found that we had to each token immediately after he earned it. We establish those new reinforcers, a problem that gradually increased the time he had to hold was not necessary in the laboratory but that onto the token before he could trade it in. With experimentation had shown us how to accom- some, we had to proceed extremely slowly, plish. Then, by using standard stimulus dis- increasing this delay period by only seconds at a crimination techniques, we placed the boys’ time. Other boys were able to advance more new behavior under appropriate environmental rapidly. Then, we had to teach them to place control. We established conditioned and gen- their tokens in their pockets before spending eralized reinforcers that previously were un- them, and eventually to use a purse. We never known to the boys, but we found that we first had to teach these things to our laboratory had to teach them to recognize such everyday subjects, but the methods we used were based items as colors, shapes, and sounds. We taught them to dress, feed, and toilet themselves, but on laboratory-derived principles. we had to adjust our techniques continually We also had to teach the boys not to steal because of tremendous variations in the boys’ tokens from each other. Most of them never had preexisting behavioral repertoires. We taught anything of their own and had had little or no many of the boys to speak, to ask for what they opportunity to learn the concept of private wanted, to play together, to read signs, to eat property. We had never had to teach such things in restaurants, and to use public transportation. to our laboratory subjects. The problem became We did all of this and more by applying and acute when one day, we found that most of the modifying methods that had proven to be tokens in our system had disappeared. We successful with both nonhuman and human discovered what had happened when a technician subjects in our laboratory work. This experience from another research project, in which some of taught me that science and practice were not our boys participated as subjects, brought us separate enterprises but were interconnected several bags full of tokens. She said that she had closely (see also Baer et al., 1968). mentioned to one of the most advanced of our Although becoming a practitioner taught me boys that she had to buy a new car, and he had much that I had not known before, my labo- asked her how many tokens a car would cost. ratory experiences greatly facilitated my new ‘‘Oh,’’ she replied, ‘‘lots and lots.’’ Soon afterward, learning. For example, by directly adapting he appeared with several bags of tokens for her. 982 MURRAY SIDMAN Although we never had encountered such monkeys, and baboons. I had become con- problems in our laboratory experimentation, we vinced that those same variables must be oper- had learned there that whenever subjects dis- ating to determine our own behavior. That played unusual behavior, there were almost conviction was strong enough to change the always ways to deal with it by applying known whole course of my life—moving to a new job principles. Rather than punish the boys for in a different city and starting in a new research stealing (a concept most of them did not direction in which I had had little previous understand) we easily solved the problem by experience. Still, in my new laboratories I not instituting a system of colored tokens. Most of only set up facilities for working with humans the boys used blue tokens. Those who were but maintained research with nonhumans as observed to steal tokens, or even simply to pick well. The neurologists were desperate enough to up tokens that the less advanced boys left lying indulge me in my peculiar research needs. around, were required to use yellow tokens; if I have already mentioned my work with they tried to cash in other colors, they received people who displayed severe intellectual disabil- nothing for them. The more advanced boys ity, and have noted that basic research spilled who earned tokens by helping out in the over into application outside the laboratory. building were given red tokens; other colors How did we approach the behavior of stroke were valueless to them. We then were able to patients who were incapable of speech? Again, use our familiar discrimination learning tech- we adapted methods that were common in niques to teach the boys that only tokens of a nonhuman laboratory research. In this instance, particular color were of value to them. we did more than try to shape responses. We I had similar experiences when I came to were concerned, first, to find out more about work in the Neurology Department at Massa- the stroke patients. Could we communicate chusetts General Hospital in Boston. There, I with them in some way other than by speech? was faced with the problem of working with How much did they understand about words? patients with whom we could not communicate Did they understand spoken and written lan- by means of speech. I had had no experience guage even though they could not speak? Could working with people who displayed severe lan- they communicate by writing? Could they com- guage deficiencies. Soon after I arrived, the chief prehend written words even though they could of the service introduced me both to a popu- not read aloud? lation of children with severe behavioral deficits To find out about and to measure their and to a number of adult patients who had language comprehension, we adapted a tech- suffered strokes and were incapable of speech. nique we had learned about from previous He asked me a simple question: ‘‘How do I research, the familiar matching-to-sample (con- evaluate these people? Because I cannot com- ditional discrimination) procedure (e.g., Cum- municate with them I am unable to carry out ming & Berryman, 1965). By making use of my usual tests to assess the state of their nervous that technique, we were able to get patients with systems. Can you help me?’’ little or no speech to tell us how much they Well, I had never investigated the behavior of understood about words. For example, could people with little or no speech, but I had more they match pictures, colors, numbers, and than 10 years of experience working with shapes they could see or feel to the spoken nonhuman subjects who were, of course, and written names of those stimuli? When they incapable of speech. My laboratory work had looked at pictures they could not name aloud, been directed at the identification and analysis could they write their names? If they had of environmental variables that controlled the difficulties in any of these tasks, as many did, behavior of laboratory rats, mice, pigeons, did they improve as time progressed after their  PRACTICE AND BASIC RESEARCH 983 stroke? We thus succeeded in obtaining quan- originally in the laboratory. In research trans- titative information about the linguistic capa- lation, however, in contrast to translational bilities of people who could not speak to us (e.g. research, we do not attempt to use scientific Sidman, Stoddard, Mohr, & Leicester, 1971). procedures to test or to evaluate the results We were able to provide the neurologists with when we try to apply knowledge we have gained data they could then attempt to correlate with in the laboratory. We just use the basic teaching brain structures and processes (e.g., Mohr, and testing procedures with many children Leicester, Stoddard, & Sidman, 1971). without controlling for their ages, intellectual abilities, types of intellectual and physical handi- Applied Research, Translational Research, and caps, living and testing environments, and so on. Research Translation We simply observe whether our procedures really Translational or applied research, too, will work. By teaching children with varying kinds of teach practitioners much that is relevant to intellectual disability, for example, to match therapeutic procedures, and I encourage clini- spoken color names with visual colors and with cians to engage in those kinds of research. Basic printed color names, we can find out whether research, however, whether in the laboratory or equivalence relations between the visual colors outside, rarely is concerned with any specific and printed names emerge without having been behavior. Skinner originally selected lever press- directly taught (see, e.g., Sidman, 2009). When ing as an arbitrary response to use in his you repeatedly see children reading and under- research because he considered the particular standing color names without having been response topography irrelevant to the general directly taught to do so, do you need scientific principles he was developing. Nor does basic proof that the complex procedure works? research usually concern itself with the social To carry out such research translation, even significance of the contingencies under investi- without meeting the criteria for translational gation. The research aim is generality. True research, practitioners do need to understand generality means that many different specifics what the basic research was all about. I believe are covered, not just those involved in a par- that the most reliable way for them to gain such ticular study. Such generality is a distinctive understanding is to be involved first in feature of basic research in comparison with the performing basic and translational research, as specific aims of most translational or applied my colleagues and I did (e.g., Sidman, 2009). If research. they simply follow a formula they have been It is relevant here to point out a difference taught for establishing color and color-name between translational research and research equivalences, they well may be unable to ap- translation. In translational research, we attempt preciate that they could accomplish the same to use scientific procedures to evaluate the results with numbers, number names, and applicability of basic research findings, proce- quantities, or with the different combinations dures, or principles in situations that we cannot of coins that make up a given quantity of money control as rigorously as we do in basic research. (e.g., McDonagh, McIlvane, & Stoddard, 1984), It is through translational research that we con- or with pictures and their printed names, or with firm, for example, that we can teach children words in different languages, and more. The equivalence relations between colors and color personal satisfactions we gained from such names in the classroom as well as in the research translation more than repaid us for laboratory. Even though the classroom environ- engaging in the rigorous research we did first. ment is not nearly as constant as basic experi- Backward chaining. The teaching of behav- mentation demands, our testing procedures and ioral chains, particularly by means of the tech- data evaluation are as rigorous as those we used nique of backward chaining, is another area that 984 MURRAY SIDMAN has brought me satisfying, even thrilling, feel- translational, or applied) to tell me that the ings of accomplishment. In the laboratory, back- procedure worked. Similarly, simply by apply- ward chaining is a standard procedure for teaching ing the technique to many different kinds of nonhuman subjects such complex procedures as behavioral chains, I became convinced that the chained schedules, by means of which we have, original basic procedures involved in teaching for example, learned much about conditioned animals chained schedules was of practical use. reinforcement (see Catania, 2007). In teaching In our project with intellectually deficient boys, subjects to perform accurately in chained sched- we used backward chaining to teach them to do ules, experimenters have come to take the such things as feed themselves (using spoons, effectiveness of backward chaining for granted. forks, knives, cups, etc.) and to dress themselves They teach the later segments of the chain first, (to put on a shirt, trousers, socks, and shoes). gradually adding earlier responses and stimuli. We taught them to help with meal tasks (clean- Little translational research on backward ing and setting tables and carrying their meals chaining has been reported, but research on trays from the kitchen to their tables). We translation by those originally acquainted with also used backward chaining to teach them how the basic laboratory procedure has demonstrat- to maintain personal and environmental clean- ed its utility with more complicated and more liness (washing hands, brushing teeth, combing socially relevant behavior. To extend the back- hair, sweeping the floor, etc.). Later, we also ward chaining procedure to more complex used the same method to teach them to write forms of behavior requires one first to recognize their names, to spell words, and to pronounce behavioral chains, which are the only kind of words. With more advanced pupils, we even behavioral sequence to which backward chain- were able to teach them via backward chaining ing applies. Behavioral chains are sequences to memorize a lengthy poem; each time they of actions and environmental events in which read the poem aloud, we left out more letters, earlier units must be completed before later units syllables, words, and phrases until they finally even become available. Shoe tying is an example; had to read only the title before reciting the each successive step produces a new configura- whole poem without the help of text. (I actually tion of the laces, and each configuration calls for a have used this procedure in a classroom demon- different response. In backward chaining, the stration for college students.) teacher would start by tying the shoe almost all the We did not carry out any of these successful way and then asking the child to supply only the applications of backward chaining under con- final response (pulling the loops tight). Reinforce- trolled, replicable conditions. Nor did we gather ment for ‘‘tying the shoe’’ would be immediate. data that we could report in a journal. Our Then, the teacher would retie the shoes but not experiences, however, taught us about the appli- quite as far this time, and ask the child to supply cability of backward chaining. I did not need one more new step. Completing that step would translational or applied research to convince me; place the child in position simply to complete the successful research translations were sufficient. I sequence as he or she previously had learned to do, am convinced, however, that practitioners are with reinforcement coming at the end, as before. less likely to recognize situations in which back- The teacher gradually would work backward in ward chaining would help them if they never the sequence, with each new step placing the child have been involved in basic research that deals in a position to complete the task by doing what with the teaching of behavioral chains. Practi- he or she already had learned. tioners who are familiar with research examples I taught my 5-year-old daughter this way to (even better, who themselves have been involved tie her shoes. It took only about 10 min. At that in relevant research) then can use the research point, I did not need a research project (basic, examples to guide them and can generalize the  PRACTICE AND BASIC RESEARCH 985 basic findings to new, clinically relevant teach- dispenser sounds and the animal, as it had ing situations. already learned to do, goes directly to the food Errorless learning. Backward chaining is more tray and eats the pellet it finds there. Rein- than just another effective teaching technique. It forcement is immediate, and the animal con- illustrates the principle that learning does not tinues to press the lever regularly. require trial and error; learning can be errorless. Practitioners who are aware of the basic The discovery that pigeons can be taught dis- research that has led to greater understanding of criminations errorlessly (Terrace, 1963a, 1963b) errorless learning will find themselves armed now has been generalized to many different kinds with more than just a few specific teaching of human behavior (e.g., Sidman, 2010), but it techniques like backward chaining, stimulus still is not recognized as the conceptual revolu- fading, or stimulus shaping (e.g., Sidman, tion it really is with respect to our conception of 2010). The fact is that errorless learning leads where our behavior comes from. The principle of to more general procedures that can be summed trial-and-error learning places the responsibility up as programmed instruction. An instructional for learning or failure to learn on the learner. program specifies not only what the pupil, That there exist techniques for producing error- subject, or client is to learn but also describes in less learning shifts this responsibility from the detail the steps the teacher must take to ensure learner to the teacher. With learning shown to be that the pupil learns all the prerequisites for that the responsibility of the teacher, we have another final desired performance. Research, however, example of the scientific sterility of the concept particularly in the area of stimulus control, has of self-determination of behavior. Also, the prin- taught us that in any learning situation, what ciple that learning can be errorless is much more the teacher sees as relevant is not necessarily general than any particular teaching technique. If what the learner sees. The problem was stated it is appreciated not just by basic scientists but succinctly by Prokasy and Hall (1963) as also by practitioners, such understanding can follows: greatly increase the effectiveness of any behav- What represents an important dimension of the ioral therapy that involves the teaching of new physical event for the experimenter may not even behavior. exist as part of the effective stimulus for the subject. Skinner (1938) actually gave us the first Similarly, the subject may perceive aspects of an experimental event which have been ignored by, or demonstration of the deliberate production are unknown to, the experimenter. (p. 312) of errorless learning. Since then, innumerable experimenters have found that we can teach An important relation between basic research responses like pressing a lever or pecking a key and practice may be illustrated succinctly by errorlessly if we make sure that we first teach substituting in the Prokasy and Hall citation the our subjects everything they have to know in words practitioner and client for experimenter order to perform the desired response. We first and subject, respectively. teach the experimental subjects that the pellets It was basic laboratory research that led they had never experienced before are actually Prokasy and Hall (1963) to recognize this food. We do this by mixing the pellets with fundamental problem that arises in attempts to their usual food supply. Then, while the ani- establish stimulus control, that is to say, in mals are in the experimental space, we teach placing a pupil’s or client’s behavior under the them where to find the food pellets (in the food control of some specific aspect of the environ- tray). Also, we teach the animals when to find ment. In keeping with Prokasy and Hall’s food in the tray (after the food dispenser research-derived alert, failures to teach a client sounds). Finally, we introduce the lever. As may often result from an incorrect assumption soon as the animal first presses it, the food that the practitioner and the client are attending 986 MURRAY SIDMAN to the same stimuli. For example, in our work until the pupil meets a predetermined criterion with children with severe intellectual challenges, for saying that color name correctly. After going we discovered that before we could teach them through this process with several colors sepa- to recognize anything as complicated as printed rately, the teacher then presents these colors words, we first had to teach them to discrim- individually on consecutive trials and finds that inate seemingly simple stimuli like differently the pupil is unable to name them. The incorrect slanted lines, curved lines, and other basic assumption here was that the colors that were shapes. One of our first mistakes was to assume controlling the teacher’s naming behavior also that the mere presence of a stimulus at the time were controlling what the pupil said. All the of reinforcement is enough to establish control pupil had to do to produce reinforcers, how- of the response (see Saunders, 2011, for a more ever, was to keep saying the same word on trial thorough discussion of this misapprehension). after trial. There was no need even to look at the We started by teaching a boy first to trace colors; simply presenting colors was not suffi- vertical lines, and then to copy those lines. cient to teach their names. Again, this is an When he was copying the line perfectly on every example of a research-derived principle that trial, we presented him with a horizontal line to applies to many forms of stimulus control. copy. What he did was draw a vertical line, Teachers must make sure that pupils see what instead. they see. Practitioners who have learned such For this boy, the vertical line that we thought general principles will be able to solve many we were giving him to copy was actually irre- more learning problems than will those who levant to what he was doing. He was not have been taught a teaching technique to solve a copying the stimulus we were looking at but particular problem without understanding the was just drawing vertical lines, for which he technique’s general applicability. received reinforcement. He did not even have to I also had an experience that, if I had failed look at the sample line. If we had attended to recognize that my subject and I were not properly to our own experimental procedures looking at the same stimuli, would have pre- and data, we never would have made the mis- vented me from getting started in the field take of presenting the same stimulus to the boy of equivalence relations (Sidman, 1994). The on every trial, but we had enough of a back- critical part of that first experiment involved a ground to change our own behavior quickly. conditional discrimination procedure in which I We then varied the orientation of the lines the attempted to teach a boy to match each of 20 boy was to trace and then to copy, starting with dictated (auditory) picture names to its corre- very small variations from trial to trial and then sponding printed (visual) picture name, giving increasing them gradually. Changing our own him a display of eight printed names from interpretation of what was going on here served which to choose one on each trial. The subject to eliminate the student’s errors in learning to in that first experiment was a boy so severely produce the lines. handicapped intellectually that I automatically I have seen a similar mistake being made in assumed I could present the same sequence teaching clients to read words and to name of 20 conditional discrimination trials (each stimuli like colors, numbers, and shapes. For consecutive trial offering him eight different example, the teacher presents a color, tells the visual stimuli from which to select the correct pupil its name, and then asks the pupil to say one) without his learning the position of the that name in trial after trial, always presenting correct word in consecutive displays. That auto- the same color. When the pupil names that matic assumption proved to be wrong, as I color correctly on several successive trials, say 10 discovered when the boy eventually achieved a in a row, a new color is presented trial after trial criterion of 20 consecutive correct trials and I  PRACTICE AND BASIC RESEARCH 987 then presented a different sequence of names. that, we get a graphical picture of how delayed Changing the sequence completely disrupted reinforcement affects the likelihood of a re- the boy’s seemingly perfect performance. It sponse, a quantitative representation of a power- turned out that I had been looking at the ful variable. A seeming inability of a client to correct word on each trial while the boy had learn some new behavior may be caused by even been looking at the position of the correct word a small delay in the delivery of reinforcement. in consecutive displays. The applied worker who has seen such experi- How many reports have I seen since then in mental data may be more likely to avoid delays in which trial sequences either were repeated over reinforcing a client’s desirable behavior than is and over again or were not even specified, the worker who never has seen proof of the indicating that the researcher or practitioner did importance of even a few seconds of delay. not consider sequence learning to be a poten- Similarly, although many applied problems tially important, and confounding, variable? have no exact counterpart in the laboratory, Regardless of the intellectual status of my practitioners can constructively apply general experimental subjects or clients, I now make it principles that have emerged from the labora- a practice not simply to vary trial sequences but tory. If one is asked, for example, to do some- to control such characteristics as the number of thing about a teenager who repeatedly runs trials that must intervene between each repeti- away, an acquaintance with research on pun- tion of a correct stimulus location, between each ishment, escape, and avoidance behavior may repetition of a correct stimulus, between the suggest that it is not the runaway who needs placement of any particular incorrect stimulus, treatment, but the parents or other caregivers and other sequential features. Both practitioners (Sidman, 2000). If one is faced with a destruc- and researchers sometimes are puzzled by having tive, seemingly unmanageable child, the knowl- generated a criterion performance only to observe edgeable practitioner will ask, ‘‘What are the their clients or subjects then reverting to pre- consequences of the destructive behavior for the criterion levels. Prior experience with methods child? What does the child get from destructive for evaluating experimental or clinical data will actions?’’ He or she then will try to arrange for lead them to suspect that the seeming criterion the child to obtain those same consequences by performance was illusory, based on differences acceptable rather than destructive behavior. For between the variables that determined the behav- example, one of the boys with whom we were ior of the subjects or clients and those that working went through a phase in which he determined the behavior of the experimenter or broke windows by smashing them with his fist. practitioner. Eventually, we noticed that this violence never We have a situation now in which many produced cuts or any other injuries to his hand. behavior-analytic practitioners often may be This clue told us that his window smashing was unaware of the source of their methods. To take not simply an emotional response or an exam- an elementary example, basic research has ple of his ‘‘destructive nature’’ but rather was an defined and continues to refine the most basic out-and-out example of operant behavior, rein- applied technique: positive reinforcement. Ap- forced by its consequences. An immediate plied workers who are acquainted with this consequence, of course, was the tremendous research might well be more capable of respond- amount of attention he generated each time he ing effectively to many seeming failures in their broke a window. When we then made sure to standard reinforcement procedures. In the labo- provide such attention after more desirable ratory, for example, we can control precisely behavior, his window smashing stopped. the length of time after which reinforcement Another example might be when a practi- follows some particular behavior. When we do tioner sees that the constructive new behavior he 988 MURRAY SIDMAN or she has taught a client does not generalize research background would provide practition- beyond the actual teaching situation. An under- ers with a firmer understanding of why they are standing of stimulus control will lead to an doing what they do. examination of the particular aspects of the For a practitioner whose training did not teaching situation that control the new behavior include basic research experience in particular, but are not present at other times and places. his or her daily professional life may not provide The therapist then will try to eliminate those opportunities to gain the kinds of experiences irrelevant sources of behavioral control. For that I have outlined. For them, I can only example, a student who has learned to match suggest that a program of readings in the words and pictures that are presented on a research literature, along with discussions (as computer screen may then fail that task when regularly scheduled as possible) with friends, the stimuli are presented on the tabletop. For coworkers, and supervisors might provide valua- the student, the vertical orientation of the ble insights. A major task before us, therefore, is computer display may have been a critical to develop programs that will turn out research- aspect of the stimuli of interest to the teacher ers who understand and even engage in practice, (the words and pictures). The problem might be and that will turn out practitioners who solved by orienting the stimulus display verti- understand and even engage in research. I refer cally on the tabletop and then gradually tilting here, of course, to the scientist-practitioner the display until it is oriented horizontally on model. the table. Currently, however, many academic pro- All of these problem situations vary, but the grams in behavior analysis might not emphasize principles are consistent. Basic research, al- or even discuss the concept of the scientist- though not designed to solve any particular practitioner. The relation between research and applied problem, provides principles and tech- practice is a two-way relation, with research niques that are applicable even to problems that experience providing a general background that a practitioner may never have seen before. permits practitioners to deal with problems that go well beyond the particular ones that he or Concluding Comments she actually has been trained to handle, and These have been some highlights of one with practical experience exposing problems person’s experiences in moving back and forth that would repay scientific investigation (e.g., between basic behavior-analytic research and Sidman, 2008). Unfortunately, I am not aware practice. Many others have similar stories to tell. of any publicly available data that permit us to The main point is that basic research is not evaluate particular training programs. What I irrelevant to practice; it can provide effective am saying, then, is that the professional training tools for treating unwanted behavior, identify- of behavior analysts requires analysis itself. ing missing behavior, and teaching new behav- Effective training principles then might be ior. Engaging even in a narrowly defined adopted from those programs that have been research project can be valuable to a practition- successful in turning out scientist-practitioners. er; engaging in a prolonged research project that Even more valuable, and probably more chal- takes you in different directions will add even lenging, would be the development of applied more to your practical skills. I believe that the research programs that are designed to evaluate practice of behavior analysis would become the effectiveness of particular features of train- more generally effective if the required training ing programs. programs for those intending to go into applied Self-examination also would help to clarify behavior analysis were made more rigorous the effectiveness of the qualifying tests for the relative to training in basic research. A basic certification of behavior-analytic practitioners. I  PRACTICE AND BASIC RESEARCH 989 understand the need for certification as a way for It seems reasonable to me that practitioners the profession to protect itself from those who would be more likely to seek training that would make false claims of competence. I com- included new developments if the qualifying mend the development of the Behavior Analysis tests were made more inclusive than they are at Certification Board (BACB) and the gradual present. Might it even be useful for the test refinement of its requirements for the certifica- designers to provide explicit justification not tion of practitioners. I worry, however, that some only for including areas of basic research but aspects of the current certification program may also for leaving out other areas? A big job, make it difficult for it to maintain high standards certainly, but might the effort not be justified and, at the same time, protect itself from attack by by increases in the effectiveness of practition- those who are unfriendly to the development of ers? I do believe it would be useful for behavior-analytic practice. For example, the BACB questions and suggestions like these to be seems not to include measures of its own efficacy. discussed openly. That is to say, I know of no evidence that Finally, I fear that a neglect of basic behavior- certification is helping to turn out more effective analytic science eventually will reduce and practitioners. How to secure that evidence consti- perhaps even eliminate the public approval of tutes a problem whose solution will require the behavior-analytic practice. The general public is attention of creative investigators and practitioners. coming to recognize and appreciate the concept Again, I speak without the support of data of evidence-based practice in many areas (e.g., when I express a concern that certification Green, 2008). Sooner or later, the public will exams may raise some serious problems with come to reject any practice that it sees as lack- respect to the training of behavior analysts. ing scientific backing. Is not this avoidance That concern should not be interpreted as an of rejection the goal of those who advocate attack on the BACB but rather as the result of evidence-based practice in any field? Further- an ‘‘armchair’’ analysis of some of the more, if practitioners themselves are unaware of behavioral contingencies that its operations how basic science supports what they do, then are likely to generate. For example, I fear that a public that also is uninformed is likely to even academic curricula may become limited assume that no such relation exists. When that by the content of the qualifying examinations. happens, practitioners will lose their public Students are likely to seek curricula that acceptance. prepare them for certification. Indeed, train- I believe, therefore, that it is critical to ing programs with just that limited goal are maintain a close relation between basic being offered now. As a consequence, training research and practice. A major goal of our programs that originally were intended to profession should be the creation of scientist- cover general topics may be forced to teach to practitioners. The realization of that goal will the exams, even though those exams cannot require changes in the curricula offered by possibly evaluate all of the necessary applied many academic programs, even many that skills or the general knowledge that basic already view themselves as following a scien- research has generated. What will happen, tist-practitioner model. They will have to add then, when basic research develops new not only significant basic research training for knowledge that would be relevant to practice? potential practitioners but also significant Because that new knowledge would take time practical experiences for potential basic re- to be absorbed into certification tests, many searchers. Researchers should be required not training programs would not include it and only to take part in translational and applied many practitioners would remain unaware of research but also to translate and apply it. research findings and principles to particular 990 MURRAY SIDMAN behavioral problems. In addition, practition- Mackay, H. A., & Sidman, M. (1968). Instructing the mentally retarded in an institutional environment. In G. ers should be required to participate in basic A. Jervis (Ed.), Expanding concepts in mental retardation as well as translational and applied research. A (pp. 164–169). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. fundamental principle of learning is that McDonagh, E. C., McIlvane, W. J., & Stoddard, L. T. (1984). Teaching coin equivalences via matching to students must participate, not just be handed sample. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 5, information to absorb. 177–197. Although to some I may represent simply an Mohr, J. P., Leicester, J., Stoddard, L. T., & Sidman, M. example of old-fashioned accomplishments that (1971). Right hemianopia with memory and color deficits in circumscribed left posterior cerebral artery are irrelevant to modern behavior-analytic prac- territory infarction. Neurology, 21, 1104–1113. tice, I hope that many practitioners will take a Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes: An investigation second look, or perhaps even a first look, at of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex. London: Oxford University Press. the characteristics of experimental individual- Prokasy, W. F., & Hall, J. F. (1963). Primary stimulus subject methodology. You will find those generalization. Psychological Review, 70, 310–322. characteristics quite relevant to what you are Saunders, K. (2011). Stimulus control is an inference: trying to accomplish, as I did when I moved Avoiding the rookie stimulus-control error. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 12, 333–334. into applied research and practice. Sidman, M. (1953). Two temporal parameters of the maintenance of avoidance behavior by the white rat. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, REFERENCES 46, 253–261. Ayllon, T., & Azrin, N. H. (1968). The token Sidman, M. (1964). Anxiety. Proceedings of the American economy: A motivational system for therapy and Philosophical Society, 108, 478–481. rehabilitation. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Sidman, M. (1966). Avoidance behavior. In W. Honig Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some (Ed.), Operant behavior: Areas of research and current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. application (pp. 448–498). New York: Appleton- Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91–97. Century-Crofts. Catania, A. C. (2007). Learning. Cornwall-on-Hudson, Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: NY: Sloan. A research story. Boston: Authors Cooperative. Cumming, W. W., & Berryman, R. (1965). The complex Sidman, M. (1998). The scientist/practitioner in behavior discriminated operant: Studies of matching-to-sample analysis: A case study. Videotape, available from and related problems. In D. I. Mostofsky (Ed.), Society for the Quantitative Analyses of Behavior. Stimulus generalization (pp. 284–330). Stanford, CA: Sidman, M. (2000). Coercion and its fallout (rev. ed.). Stanford University Press. Boston: Authors Cooperative. Girardeau, F. L., & Spradlin, J. E. (1961). Token rewards Sidman, M. (2005). Meeting the world halfway. The in a cottage program. Mental Retardation, 2, 345–351. Current Repertoire: Newsletter of the Cambridge Center Green, G. (2008). ‘‘Evidence-based practice’’: Improve- for Behavioral Studies, 21, 3–4. ment or illusion? ABAI Newsletter, 31(3). Sidman, M. (2007). The analysis of behavior: What’s in it Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., Roscoe, E. M., Thompson, for us? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, R. H., & Lindberg, J. S. (2003). Response-restriction 87, 309–316. analysis: II. Alteration of activity preferences. Journal Sidman, M. (2008). O impacto da ciência na aplicação: of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 59–76. Rua de mão única? [The impact of science on Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & application: A one-way street?] Revista Brasileira de Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a functional analysis Análise do Comportamento, 4, 9–11. of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, Sidman, M. (2009). Equivalence relations and behavior: 197–209. (Reprinted from Analysis and Intervention in An introductory tutorial. The Analysis of Verbal Developmental Disabilities, 2, 3–20, 1982) Behavior, 25, 5–17. Latham, G. I. (1994). The power of positive parenting. Sidman, M. (2010). Errorless learning and programmed North Logan, UT: P&T Ink. instruction: The myth of the learning curve. European Mace, F. C. (1994). Basic research needed for stimulating Journal of Behavior Analysis, 11, 167–180. the development of behavioral technologies. Journal of Sidman, M., Stoddard, L. T., Mohr, J. P., & Leicester, J. the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 61, 529–550. (1971). Behavioral studies of aphasia: Methods of Mace, F. C., & Critchfield, T. S. (2010). Translational investigation and analysis. Neuropsychologia, 9, 119–140. research in behavior analysis: Historical traditions and Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An imperative for the future. Journal of the Experimental experimental analysis. New York: Appleton-Century- Analysis of Behavior, 93, 293–312. Crofts.  PRACTICE AND BASIC RESEARCH 991 Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New Terrace, H. S. (1963b). Errorless transfer of a discrimi- York: Macmillan. nation across two continua. Journal of the Experimen- Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New tal Analysis of Behavior, 6, 223–232. York: Knopf. Terrace, H. S. (1963a). Discrimination learning with and Received October 16, 2010 without ‘‘errors.’’ Journal of the Experimental Analysis Final acceptance March 23, 2011 of Behavior, 6, 1–27. Action Editor, Michael Kelley