The Dismal State of Federal Funding for Experimental Evaluations of Interventions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

The threats of climate change to human well-being are well-documented and are growing in number and intensity. Despite the international community investing heavily in technological innovation and policy initiatives to solve the problem, emissions continue to rise. Experts are recognizing that eliminating emissions cannot be achieved without modifying the human behavior of which emissions are a function. However, little attention has been allocated to expanding the use of strategies developed by the behavioral-science community to reduce emissions on large scales. One possible reason is that federal funding has not been arranged to select such research. Therefore, we conducted an analysis of six sources of information about federal funding to fight climate change (the Government Accountability Office, the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health, and the Center for Disease Control) and examined the extent to which they are funding behavioral science research to reduce emissions. Our results show an appalling lack of funding for behavioral science research to reduce emissions, especially experimental evaluations of strategies for reducing them. Implications and recommendations for funding of future research are discussed.

Analysis of unexpected disruptive effects of contingent food reinforcement on automatically maintained self-injury.

Research has identified treatment-responsive and treatment-resistant subtypes of automatically maintained self-injurious behavior (ASIB) based on patterns of responding in the functional analysis (FA) reflecting its sensitivity to disruption by alternative reinforcement, and the presence of self-restraint. Rooker et al. (2019) unexpectedly observed reductions in treatment-resistant self-injury while participants performed an operant task. The current study further examined this in nine participants with treatment-resistant ASIB in an example of discovery-based research. An operant task engendering high rates of responding (switch-pressing) to produce food, reduced self-injury across all participants, and eliminated self-injury for some participants under certain schedules. Although this finding must be replicated and evaluated over longer time periods, it provides some evidence that alternative reinforcement can disrupt self-injury in these treatment-resistant subtypes under some conditions. Reinforcer and response competition are discussed as possible mechanisms underlying these disruptive effects, as are the potential implications of these findings regarding treatment.

Behavioral treatment of automatically reinforced SIB: 1982 - 2015.

Some individuals diagnosed with intellectual and developmental disabilities engage in automatically reinforced self-injurious behavior (SIB). For these individuals, identifying effective treatments may be difficult due to the nature of the reinforcement contingency. The purpose of this study was to review the literature on the treatment of automatically reinforced SIB to determine commonalities in procedures that produced effective and ineffective treatment outcomes, as well as historical trends in the treatment of this class of SIB. Results of this review indicated that there were many high-quality studies on this topic, but also a wide range in the quality of studies. As for effective treatments, noncontingent reinforcement (the most common treatment component) was found to be more effective when informed by a competing stimulus assessment rather than a preference assessment. Suggestions to improve the quality of the published record and areas in which additional research is needed are discussed.

Differential Reinforcement of Low Rate Schedules Reduce Severe Problem Behavior.

Differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedules are reinforcement contingencies designed to reduce response rates. A common variation of the DRL arrangement is known as full-session DRL ( f-DRL), in which a reinforcer is presented at the end of an interval if the response rate during that interval is below a predetermined criterion. Prior human operant research involving arbitrary mouse clicks has shown that the f-DRL is likely to reduce target responding to near zero rates. Similarly, applied research has shown that the f-DRL is likely to reduce minimally disruptive classroom behavior. There are, however, relatively few successful applications of the f-DRL to severe forms of problem behavior (e.g., self-injurious behavior). Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of f-DRL on the severe problem behavior of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. For four participants, the f-DRL reduced severe problem behavior by clinically significant levels. Furthermore, results of a contingency strength analysis showed a strong negative contingency strength between target responding and reinforcer delivery for all participants.

Further analysis of subtypes of automatically reinforced SIB: A replication and quantitative analysis of published datasets.

Hagopian, Rooker, and Zarcone (2015) evaluated a model for subtyping automatically reinforced self-injurious behavior (SIB) based on its sensitivity to changes in functional analysis conditions and the presence of self-restraint. The current study tested the generality of the model by applying it to all datasets of automatically reinforced SIB published from 1982 to 2015. We identified 49 datasets that included sufficient data to permit subtyping. Similar to the original study, Subtype-1 SIB was generally amenable to treatment using reinforcement alone, whereas Subtype-2 SIB was not. Conclusions could not be drawn about Subtype-3 SIB due to the small number of datasets. Nevertheless, the findings support the generality of the model and suggest that sensitivity of SIB to disruption by alternative reinforcement is an important dimension of automatically reinforced SIB. Findings also suggest that automatically reinforced SIB should no longer be considered a single category and that additional research is needed to better understand and treat Subtype-2 SIB.