Recent basic research on human temporal discounting is reviewed to illustrate procedures, summarize key findings, and draw parallels with both nonhuman animal research and conceptual writings on self-control. Lessons derived from this research are then applied to the challenge of analyzing socially important behaviors such as drug abuse, eating and exercise, and impulsiveness associated with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Attending to the broader temporal context in which behavior occurs may aid in the analysis of socially important behavior. Applying this perspective to the study of behavior in natural environments also highlights the importance of combining methodological flexibility with conceptual rigor to promote the extension of applied behavior analysis to a broader array of socially important behaviors.

"Pure basic" science can become detached from the natural world that it is supposed to explain. "Pure applied" work can become detached from fundamental processes that shape the world it is supposed to improve. Neither demands the intellectual support of a broad scholarly community or the material support of society. Translational research can do better by seeking innovation in theory or practice through the synthesis of basic and applied questions, literatures, and methods. Although translational thinking has always occurred in behavior analysis, progress often has been constrained by a functional separation of basic and applied communities. A review of translational traditions in behavior analysis suggests that innovation is most likely when individuals with basic and applied expertise collaborate. Such innovation may have to accelerate for behavior analysis to be taken seriously as a general-purpose science of behavior. We discuss the need for better coordination between the basic and applied sectors, and argue that such coordination compromises neither while benefiting both.

This investigation compared the predictions of two models describing the integration of reinforcement and punishment effects in operant choice. Deluty's (1976) competitive-suppression model (conceptually related to two-factor punishment theories) and de Villiers' (1980) direct-suppression model (conceptually related to one-factor punishment theories) have been tested previously in nonhumans but not at the individual level in humans. Mouse clicking by college students was maintained in a two-alternative concurrent schedule of variable-interval money reinforcement. Punishment consisted of variable-interval money losses. Experiment 1 verified that money loss was an effective punisher in this context. Experiment 2 consisted of qualitative model comparisons similar to those used in previous studies involving nonhumans. Following a no-punishment baseline, punishment was superimposed upon both response alternatives. Under schedule values for which the direct-suppression model, but not the competitive-suppression model, predicted distinct shifts from baseline performance, or vice versa, 12 of 14 individual-subject functions, generated by 7 subjects, supported the direct-suppression model. When the punishment models were converted to the form of the generalized matching law, least-squares linear regression fits for a direct-suppression model were superior to those of a competitive-suppression model for 6 of 7 subjects. In Experiment 3, a more thorough quantitative test of the modified models, fits for a direct-suppression model were superior in 11 of 13 cases. These results correspond well to those of investigations conducted with nonhumans and provide the first individual-subject evidence that a direct-suppression model, evaluated both qualitatively and quantitatively, describes human punishment better than a competitive-suppression model. We discuss implications for developing better punishment models and future investigations of punishment in human choice.

A mathematical model of operant choice, the generalized matching law was used to analyze play-calling data from the 2004 National Football League season. In all analyses, the relative ratio of passing to rushing plays was examined as a function of the relative ratio of reinforcement, defined as yards gained, from passing versus rushing. Different analyses focused on season-aggregate data for the league as a whole, game-by-game data for the league as a whole, and game-by-game data for individual teams. In all analyses except those for a few individual teams, the generalized matching law accounted for a majority of variance in play calling. The typical play-calling pattern reflected undermatching (suggesting imperfect sensitivity of play calling to yardage-gained reinforcers) and a bias for calling rushing plays. Bias was found to be a function of both the relative risk of turnovers and the relative variability in yards gained associated with passing versus rushing plays. The external validity of the matching analyses was supported by significant correlations between parameters of the generalized matching law and team success on offense and season winning percentage. These results illustrate the broad applicability of the generalized matching law to problems outside of the laboratory.

The results of many human operant conditioning experiments appear to show that humans are less sensitive than nonhumans to operant consequences, suggesting species discontinuities in basic behavioral processes. A reanalysis of 311 data sets from 25 studies employing variable-interval schedules of reinforcement designed to assess sensitivity to reinforcement corroborates the claim that human behavioral allocation among alternatives often deviates from predictions based on rates of experimentally programmed consequences. Close inspection of the studies in question, however, suggests that methodological issues contribute heavily to the differences noted so far between humans and nonhumans and that an explanation based upon species discontinuities is not tenable.Consequences clearly influence the behavior of nonhuman organisms. The rich operant conditioning literature shows that reinforcing consequences alter the strength of behavior that produces them and forge relations between behavior and antecedent stimuli. These effects hold across a wide range of species, settings, response classes, and types of reinforcers, placing them among the most widely replicated outcomes in the biological and behavioral sciences. As a result, the threeterm operant contingency, which encompasses the relations among antecedent conditions, operant behavior, and reinforcers, has been proposed as the foundation of a broad range of complex capabilities both in nonhuman species (e.g., Donahoe, Burgos, & Palmer, 1993) and, perhaps more speculatively, in humans (e.g., Skinner, 1953Skinner, , 1957.Successful applications to human affairs, based on the core notion that human behavior is sensitive to its consequences, provide reason for optimism about the generality of operant principles. As can be expected ofa successful science, applications have flowed from the laboratory since the earliest days of operant psychology. They include, but are not limited to, animal models of substance abuse and treatment (e