Compliant in a Moment: A Commentary on Nevin

Abstract

Nevin's scholarly and timely discussion attempts to maintain the precarious union of the experimentally derived theory of behavioral momentum with applications of the behavioral momentum construct to human subjects in applied settings. Nevin's discussion adds much‐needed clarification to a process that at times has proven to be awkward for applied researchers. In this commentary, we will address three general questions: (a) Can the applications of behavioral momentum be derived from the theory as conceptualized by Nevin? (b) Could those applications have been developed had the theory not been formulated? (c) Does behavioral momentum theory add significantly to the compliance literature?

Establishing Operations: Implications for the Assessment, Treatment, and Prevention of Problem Behavior

“…Similar observations have been made by Smith and Iwata (1997) and Houlihan and Brandon (1996). It should be noted that these (and the current) accounts of the role that may be played by EOs in high-p/low-p procedures rely heavily on inference from observed changes in the probability of compliance to high-p and low-p commands.…”

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.…”

Untitled

“…Sessions with the second trainer, however, were conducted on an infrequent basis. As the trainer presenting requests becomes established as a source of reinforcement, it may be necessary to apply the high-p request sequence more consistently and frequently for low-p requests delivered by additional trainers to acquire stimulus control over the subjects' compliant responding (Houlihan & Brandon, 1996).…”