Editorial: Retrospections, Prospections and New Paths for Behavioral Science

Hantula, Donald A.

doi:10.1007/s40614-017-0130-9

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The darker lines illustrate group-level estimates related to the consumption of the treatment alternative and the lighter lines reflect individual-level responding related to the consumption of Evidence-based Practices. Hantula, 2017;Kahneman et al, 1982); however, basic and applied research with human and nonhuman animals regularly reveals deviations from these predictions and such assumptions seldom hold (Mazur, 1987;Reed et al, 2013). Revisiting treatment choice, it stands to reason that expecting caregivers to make perfectly rational treatment choices is untenable (i.e., what we should do as opposed to what we actually do).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That is, one would assume that a perfectly rational agent would favor choices more associated with larger and more probable returns (i.e., EBPs) over alternatives with lesser, or at least less probable, returns (i.e., fads, pseudoscience). Indeed, Rational Choice Theory holds that individuals seek to maximize utility (Hantula, 2017), and in the case of behavioral therapies, should choose EBPs more often than not (Gilroy et al, 2022). However, research with human and nonhuman animals has found that organisms rarely behave rationally and regularly demonstrate patterns of "irrational" or "suboptimal" choice (Ainslie, 1975(Ainslie, , 1992.…”

Section: Behavioral Economics and Treatment-related Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Applications of operant demand to treatment selection II: Covariance of evidence strength and treatment consumption

Gilroy

Feck

2022

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence-based practices (EBPs) are a critical component of effective and ethical service delivery. Clinicians in the behavioral sciences regularly advocate for the use of therapies and interventions based on the strength and breadth of scientific evidence. However, caregiver choices related to specific behavior therapies are seldom based solely on the degree (or the presence) of scientific evidence. This study applied methods from the Operant Demand Framework to characterize caregiver choices when concurrently available behavior therapies varied in terms of unit price and levels of evidence. Four Hypothetical Treatment Purchase Tasks were designed to evaluate how relative differences in scientific evidence between behavior therapies influenced the demand for, and substitutability of, EBPs. Results from 106 caregivers recruited from the Amazon Mechanical Turk platform indicated that low-, moderate-, and high-evidence treatment choices all functioned as substitutes for a high-evidence (i.e., well-established) behavior therapy. A main effect was observed for the level of evidence, whereby the strength of evidence appeared to moderate the degree to which respective treatments functioned as substitutes. These results extend the literature on the factors associated with treatment choices, and specifically, highlight how differences in the degree of scientific evidence influence choice when deciding between behavior therapies. These results are discussed in the context of more effectively advocating for the use of EBPs with mainstream and lay audiences.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%