Molar functional relations and clinical behavior analysis: Implications for assessment and treatment

Abstract

The experimental analysis of behavior has identified several molar functional relations that are highly relevant to clinical behavior analysis. These include matching, discounting, momentum, and variability. Matching provides a broader analysis of how multiple sources of reinforcement influence how individuals choose to allocate their time and offers an empirical rationale for reducing problem behavior by increasing adaptive behavior. Discounting highlights the functional relations that affect self-control. Momentum specifies the variables responsible for persistence in challenging situations. Variability characterizes a functional dimension of behavior that is essential for learning and problem solving. These concepts have important implications for clinical practice and research. A selective review of these concepts is presented, and their implications for assessment and treatment are discussed with two goals: to inform basic scientists about the relevance of their work and to invite clinical behavior analysts to broaden the conceptual basis for their work.

What are we doing when we translate from quantitative models?

“…In discussing these challenges, we will describe examples of translational inquiries that reflect varying degrees of emphasis on equation-based principles and analyses. Although we do not dispute the value of narrative extensions of quantitative principles, like those emphasized by Waltz and Follette (2009), we will argue that translation potentially is richer and more nuanced when the underlying equations are considered. 2 Here we take the most general view of translation as exploring the generality of laboratory-based principles.…”

“…Such continuity is evident, for instance, when applied behavior-analytic research and practice are conceived explicitly as an extension of laboratory-based principles (e.g., Critchfield & Reed, 2004;Lerman, 2003;Mace, 1996;Wacker, 2000). This point was highlighted effectively in an essay by Waltz and Follette (2009), who showed how concepts that originate in the laboratory can advance clinical assessment and treatment.…”

“…Yet few potential translators (i.e., those who focus on behavior outside the laboratory) are well equipped to understand this work. 1 The Waltz and Follette (2009) article epitomized the contemporary tension concerning quantitative analysis. On the one hand, it featured three conceptual advances-matching, delay discount-ing, and behavioral momentumthat all derive from quantitative research.…”

“…We hope that, by describing clinical advances, Waltz and Follette (2009) succeeded in whetting reader appetites for the fruits of the quantitative analysis of behavior. We worry, however, that a mostly narrative (wordbased) approach to translating from quantitative models both obscures the important conceptual role that equations play in behavioral science and suggests that nothing is lost when equations are ignored.…”

“…2 Here we take the most general view of translation as exploring the generality of laboratory-based principles. Better applied practice is a valuable by-product of this exploration but unlike in Waltz and Follette (2009) is not our explicit focus, for two reasons. First, we are content to leave the challenge of tailoring interventions to the peculiar challenges of each practice domain to domain experts.…”