Behavior Analysis In Psychology

Behavior analysis is a scientific approach to understanding why we do what we do. It focuses on how environmental factors, like consequences and context, influence and shape human and animal behavior. It has three branches: the philosophy of behaviorism, a basic science called the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (EAB), and an applied field called Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA).

Three Branches of Behavior Analysis

Behavior analysts divide their field into three coordinated branches. Each does a different job.

The split explains why one label can mean different things. “Behaviorism” names the philosophy, “EAB” the laboratory science, and “ABA” the applied practice. Popular summaries often blur them, and that is where much confusion about the field begins.

Branch	What it does	Anchor source
Behaviorism (philosophy)	Supplies the assumptions: behavior is lawfully related to the environment and largely learned.	Watson (1913); Skinner (1974)
Experimental Analysis of Behavior (basic science)	Discovers basic principles of behavior in controlled laboratory experiments.	Skinner (1938)
Applied Behavior Analysis (applied field)	Uses those principles to improve socially important behavior in homes, schools, clinics, and workplaces.	Baer, Wolf, and Risley (1968)

Each branch faces different criticisms. A complaint about rat experiments says little about a classroom program. A critique of one clinic’s goals says little about Skinner’s philosophy.

Animal research and artificial laboratory settings are mostly EAB concerns. Evidence quality, goals, and ethics are mostly ABA concerns. The sections below keep the branches apart.

Radical Behaviorism: The Philosophy Behind the Science

The philosophical branch is behaviorism, but specifically B. F. Skinner’s radical behaviorism rather than the earlier methodological behaviorism of John B. Watson.

Watson (1913) called psychology “a purely objective experimental branch of natural science.” He ruled private mental events out of science because nobody else can observe them.

Radical behaviorism takes a different line. It does not deny that thoughts, feelings, and sensations exist. Skinner (1974) argued that these private events are themselves behavior, explained by the same principles as outward actions rather than treated as inner causes.

The word “radical” here means thoroughgoing, not extreme. This philosophical work also covers conceptual analysis: clarifying terms and interpreting cognition in behavioral terms (Moore, 1995).

Radical behaviorism also treats behavior as determined, lawfully related to environmental variables rather than the product of free will (Skinner, 1953, 1971). Skinner argued that a designed environment could therefore improve the human condition. He dramatized it in the novel Walden Two (Skinner, 1948). This determinism remains controversial.

Experimental Analysis of Behavior (EAB)

The Experimental Analysis of Behavior (EAB) is the basic scientific branch of behavior analysis that aims to discover the fundamental laws of learning.

Its goal is to understand how behavior changes as a function of the environment.

EAB does this through tightly controlled laboratory experiments, usually with nonhuman organisms, so that researchers can isolate cause-and-effect relationships with precision.

It grew from Skinner’s (1938) The Behavior of Organisms. A typical experiment places a rat or pigeon in an operant chamber, such as a Skinner box. The experimenter arranges every antecedent and consequence.

Each response is recorded continuously as a cumulative record, a running graph of responses over time. EAB studies the individual organism, not group averages.

EAB also uses reversal designs, which remove and reinstate a procedure to show it caused the change. It analyzes schedules of reinforcement, the patterns of reward that produce lawful, reproducible response profiles (Ferster & Skinner, 1957).

These methods established the core phenomena of the discipline. They include reinforcement, punishment, extinction, stimulus control, and shaping. The full mechanics are in our guide to operant conditioning.

EAB is different from both behaviorism and Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA)

Behaviorism is the philosophy: the idea that psychology should study observable behavior and its environmental determinants.

EAB is the scientific research based on that philosophy, focused on discovering basic principles.

ABA, in turn, is the applied branch. It takes the principles discovered in EAB and uses them to solve real-world problems, such as communication training, behavior reduction, skill teaching, and workplace interventions.

Core Tenets and Historical Foundations

The fundamental assumptions of the behaviorist approach include:

1. Focus on Observable Behavior: Behaviorists, particularly early proponents like John B. Watson, rejected the study of internal mental processes (such as consciousness, feelings, or cognition) as unscientific because they cannot be directly seen or measured. Watson argued that for psychology to become a legitimate science, it must focus on outward observable behavior.
2. Learning is Central: Behaviorists maintain that all behavior is learned through building associations between stimuli, responses, and outcomes. Early behaviourists believed that people behave consistently based on prior learning.
3. Continuity Across Species: The approach often uses animals in experiments under the assumption that principles learned from animal models, such as rats and dogs, can be applied to human behavior.

Key figures established the foundations for modern behavior analysis through the study of two fundamental forms of learning: classical conditioning and operant conditioning.

• Classical Conditioning: This form of associative learning involves linking two types of stimuli. Ivan Pavlov studied the conditioned reflex, where a natural, involuntary (reflexive) response to a stimulus (unconditioned stimulus) becomes associated with a new stimulus (conditioned stimulus) after repeated pairing.
• Operant Conditioning: Also known as instrumental conditioning, this process focuses on the relationship between behaviours and their consequences. B. F. Skinner concentrated on how reinforcement (which increases the probability of a behavior) and punishment (which decreases the probability of a behavior) drive behavior. 

Criticisms of EAB

---

1. EAB relies too heavily on animal research

A major criticism is that EAB depends heavily on animal studies, which may not generalise to complex human behaviour.

Much of the classic EAB research uses rats and pigeons in highly controlled conditions.

Tight control has a cost. Human behaviour is shaped by language, culture, cognition, emotion, and social interaction. Most EAB paradigms leave these factors out.

As a result, many of EAB’s findings apply only to simple, low-level behaviours and do not capture the richness of real-life human functioning.

Because of this limited generalisability, EAB often struggles to explain or predict behaviour in natural environments, reducing its usefulness for understanding relationships, decision-making, or mental health.

This weakens the external validity of the approach and limits its real-world impact.

The problem is not purely theoretical, though. Fuller (1949) and Lindsley (1956) tested whether operant principles extend to humans, using a profoundly disabled adult and chronic psychiatric patients. They found that the principles did.

That does not settle every case. The fair criticism is that extrapolation must be checked case by case, not that animal findings cannot transfer.

---

2. EAB oversimplifies behaviour by ignoring internal states

A strong criticism is that EAB often dismisses internal mental states such as emotions, motivations, beliefs, and goals.

Traditional behaviourism avoided discussing internal processes, arguing that only observable behaviour should be studied. Radical behaviourism does not deny that thoughts and feelings exist. It treats them as behaviour, explained by the same principles (Skinner, 1974).

However, modern research shows that internal states play a crucial role in decision-making, self-control, and social behaviour.

The account is incomplete. By excluding these processes, EAB offers only environmental explanations of why behaviour occurs.

This creates a theory that is too reductionist for many real-world problems, especially those involving emotion or cognition (e.g., anxiety, addiction, trauma).

As a result, EAB struggles to address human behaviour in applied settings, reducing both its explanatory power and its clinical relevance.

---

3. EAB’s focus on lab-based control reduces ecological validity

EAB’s strict experimental control means that behaviour is often studied in artificial environments that do not represent real-life contexts.

Many EAB experiments occur in controlled chambers where only one variable is changed at a time.

While this allows for clean cause-and-effect conclusions, real life involves multiple interacting influences: social pressures, emotions, goals, cultural norms, and unpredictable events. EAB’s methods struggle to capture this complexity.

This makes the findings less applicable outside the laboratory.

Behaviour that appears orderly and predictable in controlled settings often becomes far less consistent in natural environments, limiting the approach’s usefulness for predicting human behaviour in schools, workplaces, or families.

---

4. EAB produces large quantities of data but weak theoretical explanations

EAB has been criticised for generating vast amounts of data without producing high-level theories that integrate or explain these findings.

The field traditionally prioritises empirical demonstrations, for example showing how reinforcement schedules influence behaviour.

However, these demonstrations often remain isolated. EAB has been slow to develop overarching theories of behaviour that connect findings across different studies.

Strong theory is missing. Without it, the field lacks a framework for understanding complex behavioural patterns.

This limits scientific progress, leaving EAB vulnerable to becoming outdated as other fields (e.g., cognitive science, neuroscience, computational modelling) develop richer theoretical accounts of behaviour.

Without conceptual advancement, EAB risks stagnation and becoming less relevant within psychology.

---

5. EAB struggles to predict behaviour in new or complex situations

A further criticism is that EAB rarely engages in genuine prediction of behaviour beyond the specific conditions of an experiment.

EAB excels at showing that behaviour can be controlled under known reinforcement conditions. But prediction is another matter. EAB rarely forecasts behaviour in novel situations. The same goes for uncertain or socially complex ones.

As Killeen notes, replicating a known effect is not the same as forecasting behaviour in new scenarios.

This limited predictive power weakens EAB’s claim to be a complete science of behaviour.

If a theory cannot anticipate future behaviour, its real-world utility is limited, especially in fields like education, mental health, or public policy, where prediction guides intervention.

---

6. EAB often ignores the social and cultural contexts that shape behaviour

Another criticism is that EAB tends to focus on individual behaviour in isolation, neglecting how social and cultural factors influence actions.

Many EAB experiments involve single organisms responding alone to reinforcement contingencies, but human behaviour is deeply embedded in social systems.

People respond to peer expectations, cultural norms, moral beliefs, and relationships. These factors cannot be reduced to simple reinforcement histories.

By neglecting social context, EAB fails to provide a full account of real-life human behaviour.

This limits the approach’s relevance for understanding social issues such as conformity, cooperation, prejudice, or group dynamics, and restricts its contribution to broader psychological theory.

---

7. EAB’s methods can be ethically limiting

 Some critics argue that EAB’s methodology raises ethical concerns when applied to humans.

Behaviour modification based purely on reinforcement and punishment can be seen as manipulative, because it focuses exclusively on controlling behaviour through external consequences.

Some procedures are inappropriate or harmful in human settings. Examples include deprivation and aversive stimuli.

Ethical limitations restrict how far EAB can be applied in modern clinical, educational, and organisational contexts.

Many EAB techniques used with animals cannot ethically be replicated with people, which further limits the approach’s practical relevance.

Comparison With Cognitive and Social Learning Approaches

Behavior analysis is one of several accounts of how behavior is learned and changed. Comparing the rivals shows what is distinctive about its claims.

Cognitive-Behavioral Approaches

Radical behaviorism treats thoughts and feelings as behavior. The same contingencies explain them as explain any other response. Cognitive-behavioral theory disagrees. It makes cognition itself a proximal cause of behavior and emotion.

Beck (1976) proposed that distorted, automatic thinking generates and maintains depressed mood, not simply a history of reinforcement. Ellis (1962) made a parallel argument: beliefs about events, rather than the events alone, determine emotional and behavioral responses. Both are cognitive claims.

Both traditions keep behaviorist techniques such as homework and graded practice.

They add a causally active cognitive layer that Skinner (1974) judged unnecessary and untestable. In practice the two have converged more than competed.

The Cognitive Revolution

From the mid-1950s, a wider cognitive revolution challenged behaviorism’s premise that internal states belong outside science.

Chomsky (1959) reviewed Skinner’s Verbal Behavior (Skinner, 1957). He argued that the speed and creativity of children’s language acquisition cannot be explained by reinforcement and imitation alone.

Neisser’s (1967) Cognitive Psychology gave the information-processing approach its name and founding synthesis. It treated the mind as an active system that encodes, stores, and transforms information. The mind was back on the agenda.

Behavior analysis asks what environmental events control a response. Cognitive psychology asks what internal processes intervene between stimulus and response. The difference is one of explanatory strategy, not just vocabulary. Moore (1995) argues that cognitive explanations mistake an explanatory convenience for an observed fact.

Bandura’s Social Learning Theory

Bandura’s social learning theory sits between the two positions. It accepts that consequences shape behavior but denies that learners must be reinforced directly.

In the Bobo doll studies, children watched a model act aggressively toward an inflatable doll without being reinforced themselves. They then copied the model’s aggression (Bandura et al., 1961).

Bandura (1977) generalized this into observational learning, mediated by attention, retention, motor reproduction, and motivation. A purely operant account built on the learner’s own reinforcement history does not obviously explain it. Behavior analysts reply that observational learning is generalized imitation, established by a history of reinforced matching.

The dispute is about parsimony. It asks whether the phenomenon needs a separate cognitive mechanism, not whether children learn from watching models.

Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA)

Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) is a scientific discipline that applies behavioral principles to improve socially significant behaviors, most commonly in children with autism and other developmental disabilities. 

It uses techniques like positive reinforcement to teach new skills and discourage unwanted behaviors, focusing on areas such as communication, social skills, and self-care. 

ABA therapy is intensive, tailored to the individual, and can be delivered in various settings like home, school, or a clinic.

The Seven Dimensions of ABA

Baer, Wolf, and Risley (1968) defined what separates applied behavior analysis from the basic science and from behavior change in general. Their seven dimensions remain the field’s quality standard.

1. Applied: Targets are chosen for their social importance to the person and society, not theoretical interest.
2. Behavioral: The target is real, measurable behavior, reliably recorded, not a proxy or a verbal report.
3. Analytic: The analyst shows experimental control, a believable demonstration that the intervention produced the change.
4. Technological: Procedures are described precisely enough for a trained reader to replicate them.
5. Conceptually systematic: Interventions tie back to basic principles such as reinforcement, extinction, and stimulus control.
6. Effective: Change must be large enough to matter in practice, and statistical significance alone is not enough.
7. Generality: Change lasts over time, appears in other settings, and spreads to other behaviors.

Several modern criticisms of ABA are complaints that the field has not always met its own dimensions. Some say gains fail on generality. Others say “socially important” goals were set by others rather than by autistic people. A third complaint is that “effective” was judged by appearance rather than wellbeing.

Mechanisms and Techniques in ABA

ABA uses the core tenets of operant conditioning, which states that an organism learns to associate a voluntary behavior with a consequence (reinforcement or punishment).

The analytic unit behind every ABA procedure is the three-term contingency, or ABC model: Antecedent, Behavior, Consequence (Skinner, 1953).

The antecedent is the situation present before the behavior, such as a question, a traffic light, or a demand. The behavior is the response the person emits.

The consequence is what the behavior produces. It makes the behavior more or less likely in future.

Consequences are classified by their effect. Reinforcers increase the future probability of the behavior they follow. Punishers decrease it. Neutral consequences do neither. The full mechanics are in our guide to operant conditioning.

Two further ideas refine the model. A discriminative stimulus is an antecedent in whose presence a response has been reinforced, so it signals that reinforcement is available. A motivating operation, such as deprivation or satiation, momentarily changes how effective a consequence is as a reinforcer.

The ABC contingency is not just a description of behavior. It is the object the analyst manipulates: change the antecedents and consequences, and the behavior changes in lawful ways.

1. Reinforcement Strategies:

The key principle of ABA is the systematic use of reinforcement to encourage desired behaviours.

This process relies on identifying and delivering consequences that increase the likelihood of the behaviour being repeated in the future.

• Child-Specific Reinforcers: In this treatment, child-specific reinforcers are employed to reward and motivate autistic children when they demonstrate desired behaviours.
• Examples of Desired Behaviours: These desired behaviours include actions like making eye contact, verbalizing a greeting, or sitting on a chair when requested.
• Examples of Reinforcers: The rewards used can be tangible or intangible, such as stickers, praise, candy, bubbles, and extra play time.

2. Punishment Strategies:

ABA also incorporates punishment techniques, which are designed to decrease the probability of an undesirable behaviour.

• Discouraging Undesirable Behaviours: Punishment might be used to discourage problematic actions such as pinching, scratching, and pulling hair.
• Examples of Punishment: Techniques employed include a timeout or a sharp “No!” from the therapist or parent.

Functional Analysis: Why Does a Behavior Occur?

A defining commitment of behavior analysis is that behavior is understood by its function, not its form. Two children may both hit, yet one is maintained by adult attention and the other by escape from a demand. They need different interventions.

Functional analysis is the experimental method that identifies the maintaining consequence. It arranges conditions systematically and observes which one drives the behavior up.

Iwata and colleagues (1982/1994) tested the idea on self-injurious behavior.

The paper became one of the most influential in the applied field. The method is now a standard of care. Its limits are practical: the full analysis is time-consuming, can transiently evoke dangerous behavior, and may miss idiosyncratic functions, so briefer variants are widely used.

ABA and Behavior Therapy

ABA is situated within the broader context of behavior therapy, which applies learning principles to help clients modify undesirable behaviours.

The use of reinforcement in behavior modification systems, such as token economies, is highly effective and shares philosophical roots with ABA.

In a token economy, people earn tokens for target behaviors. They later exchange the tokens for backup rewards such as playtime.

For example, studies have found that a token economy increased appropriate social behaviors and reduced inappropriate behaviors in autistic schoolchildren. Positive behavior earned a “quiet hands” token. Inappropriate behavior cost the child a token.

The goal of these behavioral approaches is to eliminate maladaptive behaviours by utilizing the basic processes of learning, such as reinforcement and extinction.

ABA Applications Beyond Autism

ABA is often equated with autism treatment. In fact, its technology is used across many domains. That breadth is what Baer, Wolf, and Risley (1968) meant by a general and effective applied science of behavior.

• Education: Contingency management and precision-teaching methods descend from 1960s classroom studies, such as Hall, Lund, and Jackson (1968) on teacher attention and study behavior.
• Clinical settings: Token economies and function-based treatment address severe behavior in developmental and intellectual disabilities.
• Health: Contingency management is one of the best-evidenced treatments for substance-use disorders, and shaping is used in physical rehabilitation.
• Mental health: Behavioral activation treats depression partly as reduced engagement with naturally reinforcing activity.
• Organizations: Organizational behavior management applies the principles to safety, performance, and productivity at work.
• Animal training: Shaping and conditioned reinforcement underpin humane methods in zoos, service-animal training, and veterinary care.

Two recent studies test that claim.

Alessi et al. (2025) meta-analyzed 29 controlled studies (2,615 participants) of contingency management for unhealthy alcohol use. The technique rewards verified reductions in use with vouchers, privileges, or other incentives.

It increased alcohol-negative biological samples and alcohol-free days. It also reduced self-reported use and concurrent substance use. It did not significantly improve continuous abstinence duration.

Kitchen et al. (2023) ran a qualitative evaluation within a randomized trial of behavioral activation for depression.

Young people, parents, and therapists said engagement depended as much on tailoring delivery to the young person’s motivation and family circumstances as on the technique itself. Therapist preconceptions against a brief, manualized approach were one barrier to good delivery.

ABA Techniques

Critical Evaluation of ABA

ABA’s most visible application is early, intensive intervention for autistic children. It is also where the strongest claims and the fiercest controversy arise. The headline claims and the most rigorous syntheses diverge. So the evidence needs careful reading.

Early Efficacy Claims: Lovaas (1987)

Lovaas (1987) produced the classic demonstration of intensive early behavioral treatment.

The finding was striking and hugely influential. But it is methodologically weak. Children were not randomized, outcomes were IQ and mainstream school placement, and the original protocol used aversives, including slaps and shouting.

Its goal also draws fire. Recovery and being “indistinguishable from peers” are exactly what neurodiversity critics contest.

A follow-up at a mean age of 11.5 years found the gains preserved (McEachin et al., 1993). It inherited every design weakness of the original.

A Cochrane review pooled five controlled studies of early intensive behavioral intervention (EIBI), with 219 children (Reichow et al., 2018). It found that EIBI may improve adaptive behavior, IQ, and language compared with usual treatment.

The certainty was low to very low. The studies were few, small, and mostly not randomized.

Contemporary Research

How much does early behavioral intervention improve outcomes once study quality is taken into account? The answer has moved from confident advocacy toward quality-weighted synthesis.

Project AIM: Quality-Weighted Meta-Analysis

Sandbank et al. (2020) grouped interventions into seven types. These included behavioral (ABA-style), developmental, and naturalistic developmental behavioral interventions (NDBIs). NDBIs embed behavioral principles in child-led, play-based routines.

Detection bias arises when the person judging an outcome knows which treatment was given, as with unblinded parent reports. Project AIM sits near the top of the evidence hierarchy.

It does not show that ABA “doesn’t work”. It shows that high-quality evidence for its specific efficacy is weaker than decades of clinical enthusiasm implied. Developmental and naturalistic approaches, which also use behavioral principles, have at least as much support.

Proponents reply that pooling very different interventions and outcomes can hide real effects of well-implemented programs.

A Newer Synthesis: Han et al. (2025)

Han et al. (2025) combined 16 randomized trials of early intensive and naturalistic developmental behavioral interventions. The trials included 893 autistic participants aged 12 months to 15 years. The review added nine qualitative studies of caregivers and practitioners.

Results are reported as standardized mean differences (SMD), effect sizes in standard-deviation units. By convention, 0.2 is small, 0.5 medium, and 0.8 large.

Effects were small to moderate and mostly of low certainty. They covered adaptive behavior (SMD = 0.31), daily living skills (0.36), joint attention (0.27), and socialization (0.30).

Language showed the largest effect (SMD = 0.42, moderate certainty). More intensive programs produced roughly double the language gains. There was no significant effect on core autistic-trait severity.

Parents and practitioners reported real gains in behavior and communication. They also described emotional fatigue, unfunded caregiving labor, and a shortage of trained staff.

Reading the Two Together

The two reviews bracket the honest current answer. The strictest filter finds no defensible effect on any outcome. A larger, newer review finds small effects concentrated in language and adaptive skills. It finds none on core autistic traits.

That is measurable, skill-specific benefit, not the wholesale normalization once claimed. Many autistic stakeholders now argue that outcomes should also include wellbeing and quality of life.

The Neurodiversity and Ethics Critique

The disagreement over ABA for autism is not a simple works-or-doesn’t-work dispute. It turns on evidence quality, goals, methods, and whose voice defines success. The critique comes from many autistic self-advocates and some clinicians and ethicists. It sits within the neurodiversity paradigm.

• Goals: Making a child “indistinguishable from peers” can teach autistic children to suppress harmless behavior and pass as non-autistic.
• Compliance and autonomy: Programs have prioritized compliance and targeted self-regulatory behaviors such as stimming. Young children cannot meaningfully consent.
• Intensity: The classic model prescribes 25 to 40 hours a week for years, a burden critics find disproportionate to the evidence.
• Aversives: The early Lovaas protocol used physical aversives, and contingent electric shock is still used at one U.S. facility.
• Reported harm: Some autistic adults report distress, and surveys link ABA exposure to post-traumatic stress symptoms. This evidence is methodologically weak, so it is a reason for caution, not an established cause.

Ari Ne’eman, an autistic self-advocate and health-policy scholar, makes the central argument in When Disability Is Defined by Behavior, Outcome Measures Should Not Promote “Passing” (2021).

As Ne’eman explains, making the reduction of diagnostic traits the success measure implicitly makes typical appearance the goal. That can interfere with person-centered goals and harm people. He accepts that intrinsically harmful behaviors such as self-injury are a legitimate target.

The Case for ABA and the Field’s Response

Defenders point to more than fifty years of published data and to individual children who gained communication, self-care, and safety skills. Modern ABA, they note, has largely moved away from aversives toward reinforcement-based, assent-based, and naturalistic, child-led methods.

Many criticisms, they argue, target outdated or badly implemented practice.

The field’s own response comes from a mixed group of board-certified behavior analysts, psychologists, parents, and autistic individuals. Justin B. Leaf and colleagues (2022) set it out in Concerns About ABA-Based Intervention: An Evaluation and Recommendations.

As Leaf and colleagues explain, autism-rights and neurodiversity activists have raised legitimate concerns about historical events and possible harm. They propose reform, not abandonment. The reforms are assent, socially valid goals, ending aversives, and including autistic perspectives.

Where the Debate Stands

Where does that leave the debate?

Most parties now agree that outcome measures should include wellbeing and quality of life. They also agree that autistic people’s perspectives must inform goals and that assent matters. Aversives are unacceptable.

They still disagree about how much current practice already meets those standards.

Autistic self-advocates in particular argue that success should be judged by wellbeing, not by how non-autistic a child appears.

What quality of life means is itself an open question. A thematic analysis of interviews with 25 autistic adults found that existing measures, developed without autistic input, miss dimensions the adults prioritized (LaPoint et al., 2026). These included sensory and identity-related needs, self-determination, and relationships “in all forms”.

The dimensions varied enough between individuals that one standard checklist may not fit the population. That reframes the debate rather than resolving it. A trial that measures IQ or language may be answering a narrower question than the one that matters most to autistic people.

References

Alessi, M. R., Barbetta, L. M. S., Andreata, V. G., Leal, A. C. T., Freitas, R. P. D., Costa, G. P., Nero, N., & Anand, A. (2025). Contingency management for unhealthy alcohol use: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Alcohol, Clinical and Experimental Research, 49(12), 2660–2674. https://doi.org/10.1111/acer.70198

Ayllon, T., & Michael, J. (1959). The psychiatric nurse as a behavioral engineer. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2(4), 323–334.

Baer, D. M. (1960). Escape and avoidance response of preschool children to two schedules of reinforcement withdrawal. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 3(2), 155-159.

Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1(1), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1968.1-91

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(3), 575–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045925

Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. International Universities Press.

Bijou, S. W. (1955). A systematic approach to an experimental analysis of young children. Child Development, 26(3), 161–168.

Carrion, T. J., Miltenberger, R. G., & Quinn, M. (2019). Using auditory feedback to improve dance movements of children with disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 31(2), 151–160. 

Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language, 35(1), 26–58.

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis. Pearson UK.

Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. Lyle Stuart.

Ferster, C. B., & DeMyer, M. K. (1961). The development of performances in autistic children in an automatically controlled environment. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 13(4), 312-345.

Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Fleece, L., Gross, A., O’Brien, T., Kistner, J., Rothblum, E., & Drabman, R. (1981). Elevation of voice volume in young developmentally delayed children via an operant shaping procedure. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14(3), 351–355. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1981.14-351

Fuller, P. R. (1949). Operant conditioning of a vegetative human organism. The American journal of psychology, 62(4), 587-590.

Glenn, S. S., Ellis, J., & Greenspoon, J. (1992). On the revolutionary nature of the operant as a unit of behavioral selection. American Psychologist, 47(11), 1329.

Goltz, S. M., Mayer, A. L., & Orr, B. (2020). Applied behavior analysis as a development tool: Examples from agroforestry. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 39(8), 785-799.

Hagopian, L. P., Farrell, D. A., & Amari, A. (1996). Treating total liquid refusal with backward chaining and fading. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(4), 573–575. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1996.29-573

Hall, R. V., Lund, D., & Jackson, D. (1968). Effects of teacher attention on study behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1968.1-1

Han, D.-G., Lee, Y., Kim, H.-S., Suh, H.-W., Lee, J., Shin, S.-H., Yang, M., Choi, H., Kim, T.-H., Kang, J.-G., Ko, E., Lee, J., & Park, M.-H. (2025). Effectiveness and experiences of early intensive behavioral and naturalistic developmental behavior interventions for autism spectrum disorders: A mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 20, Article 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-025-00997-z

Heron,T. E.,Tincani, M. J., Peterson, S. M.,& Miller, A. D. (2005). Plato’s allegory of the cave revisited. Disciples of the light appeal to the pied pipers and prisoners in the darkness. In W. L. Heward, T. E. Heron, N.A. Neef, S.M. Peterson, D. M. Sainato, G.

Cartledge, R. Gardner, III, L. D. Peterson, S. B. Hersh,&J.C. Dardig (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in education: Achievements, challenges, and opportunities (pp. 267–282), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Heward, W. L., & Wood, C. L. (2003). Thursday afternoons with Don: Selections from three teleconference seminars on applied behavior analysis. A small matter of proof: The legacy of Donald M. Baer, 293-310.

Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(2), 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-197 (Original work published 1982)

Kitchen, C. E. W., Lewis, S., Ekers, D., Gega, L., & Tiffin, P. A. (2023). Barriers and enablers for young people, parents and therapists undertaking behavioural activation for depression: A qualitative evaluation within a randomised controlled trial. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 96(2), 504–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/papt.12452

LaPoint, S. C., Kiernan, B., Heinly, J., Hector, B. L., Benevides, T. W., & Maddox, B. (2026). Quality of life defined by autistic people: A thematic analysis. Autism in Adulthood, 8(4), 664–676. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2024.0180

Leaf, J. B., Cihon, J. H., Leaf, R., McEachin, J., Liu, N., Russell, N., Unumb, L., Shapiro, S., & Khosrowshahi, D. (2022). Concerns about ABA-based intervention: An evaluation and recommendations. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 52(6), 2838–2853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-05137-y

Lindsley, O. R. (1956). Operant conditioning methods applied to research in chronic schizophrenia. Psychiatric Research Reports, 5, 118–139.

Lovaas, O. I. (1987). Behavioral treatment and normal educational and intellectual functioning in young autistic children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.55.1.3

McEachin, J. J., Smith, T., & Lovaas, O. I. (1993). Long-term outcome for children with autism who received early intensive behavioral treatment. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 97(4), 359–372.

Moore, J. (1995). Radical behaviorism and the subjective-objective distinction. The Behavior Analyst, 18(1), 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392690

Moore, J. (2003). Behavior analysis, mentalism, and the path to social justice. The Behavior Analyst, 26(2), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392075

Ne’eman, A. (2021). When disability is defined by behavior, outcome measures should not promote “passing.” AMA Journal of Ethics, 23(7), E569–E575. https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2021.569

Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

O’Conner, Y. M., & Cuvo, A. J. (1989). Teaching dancercise to persons who are mentally handicapped: Programming transfer of stimulus control to a community setting. Behavioral Residential Treatment, 4(4), 289–311.

Pierrel, R., & Sherman, J. G. (1963). Barnabus, the rat with college training. Brown Alumni Monthly, 63, 8-12.

Pontone, M., Vause, T., & Zonneveld, K. L. (2021). Benefits of recreational dance and behavior analysis for individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders: A literature review. Behavioral Interventions, 36(1), 195-210.

Reichow, B., Hume, K., Barton, E. E., & Boyd, B. A. (2018). Early intensive behavioral intervention (EIBI) for young children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2018(5), Article CD009260. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009260.pub3

Sandbank, M., Bottema-Beutel, K., Crowley, S., Cassidy, M., Dunham, K., Feldman, J. I., Crank, J., Albarran, S. A., Raj, S., Mahbub, P., & Woynaroski, T. G. (2020). Project AIM: Autism intervention meta-analysis for studies of young children. Psychological Bulletin, 146(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000215

Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Skinner, B. F. (1948). Walden two. New York: Macmillan.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: MacMillan.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. Knopf.

Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. Knopf.

Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20(2), 158–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0074428

Werts, M. G., Caldwell, N. K., & Wolery, M. (1996). Peer modeling of response chains: Observational learning by students with disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(1), 53-66.

Further Reading

• Pilgrim, C. (2018). Some thoughts on shaping future behavior analysts: A call to stay true to our roots. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 11(3), 204–205.
• Morris, E. K., Altus, D. E., & Smith, N. G. (2013). A study in the founding of applied behavior analysis through its publications. The Behavior Analyst, 36(1), 73–107.