Applying behavioral theory to practice: an examination of the behavioral momentum metaphor

Abstract

This paper discusses some of the difficulties that arise in the practical applications of theories derived from specific experimental settings. Nevin's metaphoric extension of the physical concept of momentum to modifying behavior (i.e., behavioral momentum) is used as a recent example. Problems in the application of behavioral momentum are discussed, alternative analyses are offered, and methods for further testing the process are suggested.

Increasing Compliance: A Quantitative Synthesis of Applied Research on High-Probability Request Sequences

“…The results of a series of studies have shown that compliance to low-p requests was enhanced when those requests were preceded by the completion of several brief, highly preferred requests/activities (Davis & Reichle, 1996;Horner, Day, Sprague, O'Brian, & Heathfield, 1991;Mace et al, 1988). Although the mechanism responsible for the effects of high-p sequences is the subject of debate (see Brandon & Houlihan, 1997;Houlihan & Brandon, 1996;Nevin, 1996, for discussion), research indicates that the intervention is effective at increasing compliance across a variety of settings and behaviors.…”

Momentum, matching, and meaning: Toward a fuller exploitation of operant principles.

“…Debate exists concerning whether the abovementioned technique is consistent with laboratory models of behavioral momentum (Brandon & Houlihan, 1997;Nevin, 1996;Plaud & Gaither, 1996). Nevertheless, it was derived from the theory and has interesting implications for clinical work.…”

Task Interspersal Implementation Practices with Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder

“…With respect to efficiency of procedural variations, multiple studies have demonstrated that a larger ratio of maintenance tasks within a task interspersal session results in less efficient acquisition of the target task (Cooke & Reichard, 1996;Nicholson, 2013;Rapp & Gunby, 2016). Some researchers have also hypothesized that task interspersal may facilitate better discrimination ability, as the client must attend to and differentiate the alternating discriminative stimulus between tasks (Brandon & Houlihan, 1997;Dunlap & Koegel, 1980;Rowan & Pear, 1985). This reasoning suggests that programming the interspersal of tasks from different domains may be preferential over tasks from similar domains.…”