Core ABA Principles Flashcards

A behavior analyst is using differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) but notices the target behavior is still occurring at high rates despite consistent implementation. Upon review, the alternative behavior produces reinforcement on a FR5 schedule while the target behavior produces reinforcement on a VR2 schedule in the natural environment. What is the MOST likely explanation for treatment failure?

Answer: The alternative behavior's reinforcement schedule is leaner than the target behavior's schedule, reducing its relative value

For DRA to be effective, the alternative behavior must contact reinforcement that is at least as rich (dense) as what the target behavior produces. Here, the alternative behavior requires 5 responses per reinforcer (FR5) while the target behavior averages only 2 responses per reinforcer (VR2). This means the target behavior is more efficient, so the organism will continue preferring it. The matching law predicts response allocation proportional to reinforcement rates, so the leaner schedule on the alternative behavior undermines treatment.

During a functional analysis, a client's self-injurious behavior occurs at high rates across all conditions including the control (play) condition. A behavior analyst hypothesizes automatic reinforcement. However, a colleague argues the result actually suggests the behavior is socially mediated. Which finding would MOST strongly support the automatic reinforcement hypothesis over the social hypothesis?

Answer: The behavior continues at elevated rates when the client is alone with no programmed consequences and no observers present

Automatic reinforcement is defined as reinforcement that is not mediated by another person — the behavior produces its own sensory consequences. The most definitive evidence for automatic reinforcement is that the behavior persists at high rates when the individual is completely alone with no social consequences possible. If behavior were socially mediated (attention or escape), removing the social agent should reduce responding. Persistent behavior in an alone condition, especially without any programmed social consequences, is the hallmark indicator of automatic reinforcement.

A practitioner implements a token economy and observes that a client reliably exchanges tokens for backup reinforcers but shows no improvement in the target behaviors that earn tokens. A functional behavior assessment reveals the client engages in problem behavior to escape token delivery. Which principle BEST explains this unexpected outcome?

Answer: The tokens have acquired aversive properties through pairing with effortful or aversive demands

Although tokens are designed to function as conditioned reinforcers, they can inadvertently acquire aversive properties if they are consistently delivered in the context of effortful, aversive, or nonpreferred tasks (stimulus-stimulus pairing with aversive stimuli). When this occurs, the token itself — and the demand context in which it appears — becomes a conditioned aversive stimulus. The client escaping token delivery is a direct behavioral indicator that tokens are functioning as aversive rather than reinforcing stimuli. This is a well-documented but often overlooked failure mode in token economies.

In a multiple baseline design across behaviors, a researcher introduces the intervention for Behavior A at week 3, Behavior B at week 6, and Behavior C at week 9. Behavior A improves after week 3, but Behaviors B and C also show concurrent improvement before the intervention is introduced to them. What is the MOST appropriate conclusion?

Answer: Internal validity is threatened because the concurrent changes suggest a confounding variable, not the intervention, caused the improvements

The logic of a multiple baseline design depends on a staged introduction of the independent variable, with non-intervened tiers serving as controls. If behaviors not yet receiving the intervention change concurrently with the first tier's intervention, this constitutes a violation of the design's internal validity — it suggests a history or maturation confound, or a non-specific treatment effect, rather than demonstrating a functional relationship between the specific intervention and each behavior. This pattern is called 'concurrent change' and undermines experimental control, which is the core of demonstrating causation in single-case research.

A behavior analyst is designing a stimulus equivalence training program. After training A→B and A→C relations, the analyst tests for B→C and C→B without additional training. The client fails both tests. The analyst then conducts additional training on B→C and retests C→B. The client passes C→B without training. Which concept BEST accounts for why C→B emerged without direct training after B→C was trained?

Answer: Symmetry, which is a defining property of equivalence relations requiring bidirectionality of trained conditional discriminations

In stimulus equivalence, symmetry refers to the emergent reversal of a trained conditional discrimination: if B→C is trained and passes, then C→B should emerge without direct training. This is distinct from transitivity (which would derive B→C from A→B and A→C) and reflexivity (identity matching, e.g., A→A). The fact that B→C training alone produced the untrained C→B relation is the defining test of symmetry. Stimulus generalization involves responding to untrained stimuli along a physical dimension and does not account for the bidirectionality of symbolic/conditional relations.

A BCBA is evaluating the appropriateness of punishment as a behavior reduction strategy for a client who engages in severe self-injury. According to the ethical and conceptual framework of behavior analysis, which scenario would represent the LEAST justified application of a punishment procedure?

Answer: Punishment is implemented as the first-line intervention because the behavior is severe, before attempting reinforcement-based procedures or functional assessment

Ethical behavior-analytic practice requires that punishment procedures be used only after less restrictive reinforcement-based alternatives have been attempted and proven insufficient (the 'least restrictive alternative' principle). Implementing punishment as a first-line intervention, without conducting a functional assessment or attempting reinforcement-based strategies, violates this principle regardless of behavior severity. The other options all describe scenarios where punishment is used as a last resort with appropriate safeguards — which is ethically defensible. The behavior analytic approach prioritizes functional understanding and positive approaches before escalating to punishment.