Previous research has shown that Lewis rats make more impulsive choices than Fischer 344 rats. Such strain-related differences in choice are important as they may provide an avenue for exploring genetic and neurochemical contributions to impulsive choice. The present systematic replication was designed to determine if these findings could be reproduced using a procedure less susceptible to within- or between-session carry-over effects that may have affected previous findings. Specifically, delays to the larger-later food reinforcer were manipulated between conditions following steady-state assessments of choice, and the order of delays across conditions was mixed. The results confirmed previous findings that Lewis rats made significantly more impulsive choices than Fischer 344 rats. Fischer 344 rats' preference for the larger-later reinforcer, on the other hand, was less extreme than reported in prior research, which may be due to carry-over effects inherent to the commonly used technique of systematically increasing delays within session. Previously reported across-strain motor differences were reproduced as Lewis rats had shorter latencies than Fischer 344 rats, although these latencies were not correlated with impulsive choice. Parallels between reduced dopamine function in Lewis rats and clinical reports of impulse-control disorders following treatment of Parkinson patients with selective D2/D3 dopamine agonists are discussed.

This paper brings some data to bear on the criticisms, claims, and arguments that Skinner (a) denied or dismissed biological participation in behavior, (b) addressed it only late in his career or more often later than earlier, or (c) addressed it only because of the overwhelming evidence for it or the criticisms that he had overlooked it. For this, we coded Skinner's every primary-source publication for three content categories (i.e., genetics, physiology, and evolution) and for the extent to which he addressed them (i.e., in publication titles, substantively, or in passing). Our findings are that Skinner addressed biological participation in over a third of his publications throughout his career, albeit more often later than earlier. The latter, however, is accounted for by an increase in his base rate of publication and in general conditions and specific events in his career, psychology, and science. The discussion addresses our research methods; the reasons for and refutations of the criticisms, claims, and arguments; and their sources.

We examined women's participation, relative to men's, at the annual meetings of the Association for Behavior Analysis (ABA) between 1975 and 2005. Among our findings are upward trends in female presenters across formats (e.g., posters), types of authorship (e.g., first authors), and specialty areas (e.g., autism). Where women have attained parity, however, they are still often underrepresented, given their percentage of membership. Women also participate less than men as sole and invited authors and discussants and in the domains of basic research and conceptual analysis, but participate more than men in the applied domain. Data from the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior and the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysisshow parallel but delayed trends toward parity in basic and applied research, whereas data from The Behavior Analyst show only modest gains in the conceptual domain. We discuss the gender disparities in ABA's more prestigious categories of participation (e.g., invited addresses) and across its content domains, as well as in science in general, and the role of social and cultural factors in producing the disparities and how behavior analysts might aid in correcting them.

Our paper reviews and analyzes B. F. Skinner's contributions to applied behavior analysis in order to assess his role as the field's originator and founder. We found, first, that his contributions fall into five categorizes: the style and content of his science, his interpretations of typical and atypical human behavior, the implications he drew from his science for application, his descriptions of possible applications, and his own applications to nonhuman and human behavior. Second, we found that he explicitly or implicitly addressed all seven dimensions of applied behavior analysis. These contributions and the dimensions notwithstanding, he neither incorporated the field's scientific (e.g., analytic) and social dimensions (e.g., applied) into any program of published research such that he was its originator, nor did he systematically integrate, advance, and promote the dimensions so to have been its founder. As the founder of behavior analysis, however, he was the father of applied behavior analysis.

This article reports a study of the founding of applied behavior analysis through its publications. Our methods included hand searches of sources (e.g., journals, reference lists), search terms (i.e., early, applied, behavioral, research, literature), inclusion criteria (e.g., the field's applied dimension), and (d) challenges to their face and content validity. Our results were 36 articles published between 1959 and 1967 that we organized into 4 groups: 12 in 3 programs of research and 24 others. Our discussion addresses (a) limitations in our method (e.g., the completeness of our search), (b) challenges to the validity of our methods and results (e.g., convergent validity), and (c) priority claims about the field's founding. We conclude that the claims are irresolvable because identification of the founding publications depends significantly on methods and because the field's founding was an evolutionary process. We close with suggestions for future research.