This article describes the evolutionary theory of behavior dynamics, which is a complex systems theory. The relatively simple rules of the theory generate detailed emergent outcomes that can be compared to data from live organisms. Extensive qualitative and quantitative empirical evidence has been found to support the theory in every detail. We may therefore conclude that the behavior of organisms can be generated by evolutionary dynamics.

Data collection and analysis are central to scientific research, including in applied and basic behavior analysis. A substantial amount of attention has been given to how to rigorously collect and analyze data. Less attention has been paid to storing and maintaining research data, which becomes a critical step in the data analysis pipeline as the complexity and amount of data increase. Relational databases provide an efficient, reliable, and flexible method to store, maintain, and explore behavioral research data. The current article argues for the utility of relational databases in behavioral research, presents a brief introduction to relational databases, and uses some real-world examples to illustrate how relational databases have been used by the author and colleagues. Adopting relational databases to store and maintain research data would improve data integrity, facilitate data sharing between researchers, and contribute to transparency and reproducibility of analyses.

The recent resurgence of Kantorian interbehavioral psychology in the context of relational frame theory (RFT) has prompted a reevaluation of RFT's core concepts through an interbehavioral lens. Although RFT acknowledges its Kantorian roots, recent works have called for a more serious consideration of interbehaviorism in the context of developing the theory towards a more complete analysis of the complexity of human language and cognition. In particular, the current article aims to explore the alignment between the RFT concept of the relational frame and the interbehavioral interpretation of psychological happenings. To this end, the relational frame is dissected to clarify (mentalistic) misconceptions of RFT, and is then compared with interbehavioral constructs such as stimulus and response functions, substitute stimulation, and interbehavioral history. The integration of these perspectives suggests that RFT may benefit from a field-based approach to experimental and applied research. We argue that by applying the interbehavioral concept of stimulus substitution for stimuli that differ arbitrarily in multiple ways (i.e., multiple stimulus relations), the door may be opened for the entire RFT research program to yield (at least potentially) to interbehavioral field-based analyses.

Client well-being remains a central goal of research on the assessment and treatment of problem behavior. Although methodologies have evolved over the decades, the use of isolated- and synthesized-contingency functional analyses as a starting point remains debated. This article explores several factors potentially inhibiting consensus, the harm caused by division, and ways to shift the discourse regarding isolation and synthesis toward collaboration.

In recent years, public concerns about applied behavior analysis (ABA) have intensified. This article argues that foundational principles of ABA require behavior analysts to take seriously these concerns and actively work to improve our practices. We provide an overview of ongoing reform efforts and examine how these efforts have led to the emergence of distinct brands within the field. Although these reformist efforts signal a commitment to ethical progress, they also raise concerns about the proliferation of competing credentials, conferences, and professional affiliations, which could increase confusion among clients, practitioners, and policymakers. We argue that although branding within ABA may be an expected and ultimately benign response to shifting ethical and practical norms, it also carries the potential to faction reformist efforts and further divide the field, rather than promote our collective advancement toward ever-better practices. Thus, our goals are to: (1) raise awareness around the potentialities of siloing advancements under competing labels, and (2) suggest that an integrated approach synthesizing reformist insights into a cohesive framework may have the greatest impact on advancing the whole field’s understanding of best practice.

This article presents a model of consumer behavior that incorporates anchoring and price effects in describing purchase demand. The model, called F-Cap, for Finite Consumption Anchored to Price, offers an alternative to traditional microeconomic models of demand. This model is based on recent findings in psychology and behavioral economics and connects concepts from behavioral and traditional economics to the language and findings of behavior analysis. In particular, the model incorporates the idea of maximum consumption and reinforcement power developed in the exponential and exponentiated models of demand, and adds the possibility to estimate reference prices using a new, simpler estimation method. These elements are organized in a model based on the sigmoid function. A function estimation algorithm is proposed. This algorithm linearizes the function and estimates the parameters using ordinary least squares regressions. A core feature of the algorithm is that it allows the identification of reference prices, which is not possible in prior models. First, this article illustrates how the parameters of F-Cap modify the maximum level of consumption, the anchor point, and the decrease in consumption after that point, as proposed in the model. Next, using simulated data, the article shows that the algorithm estimates these parameters correctly both in standard and in mixed models. Third, the article presents evidence that F-Cap describes the behavior of human subjects in the hypothetical purchase task with less unexplained variance than alternative demand models. This function correctly estimates the parameters associated with the good's contribution to utility, which in behavior analysis language is equivalent to reinforcing power. It also estimates the response to reference prices, which can be interpreted as behavior governed by rules in the tradition of behavior analysis. The F-Cap model overall helps connecting the findings of operant behavioral economics with the practices of mainstream economics.

The effectiveness of behavior-analytic service delivery is likely to depend in part on the process of applying knowledge from the laboratory to a service setting. Therefore, a regular review of the literature is an important part of effective practice. It has been proposed that a review of the literature is one of the pillars of evidence-based practice in applied behavior analysis. An effective review of the literature requires five distinct research literacy skills: (1) efficiently finding relevant research investigations or discussions; (2) accessing a full text copy; (3) reading and evaluating; (4) applying what was read to practice; and (5) staying current. In this paper we apply the Six Boxes Model to delineate behavioral influences and possible barriers to research literacy, suggest potential interventions to improve the research literacy of professional behavior analysts, and identify potential research opportunities in this area.

Page 15, line 3 of the Conclusions section was changed to its current wording. Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The concept of response strength and the process of strengthening by reinforcement are controversial in terms of their explanatory power. We clarify potential theoretical misconceptions following from a strength-based account such as essentialist thinking and circular reasoning. These problems also arise in the practice of latent variable modeling in psychometrics. To solve these conceptual problems, we discuss the Multilevel Model of Behavioral Selection (MLBS; Borgstede & Eggert, 2021) as an alternative theoretical framework. We use blocking from Pavlovian conditioning as an example to demonstrate how the MLBS framework prevents misconceptions arising from strength-based accounts and how it provides a more parsimonious and coherent explanation of the phenomenon. We illustrate the need for precisely defined and theoretically meaningful concepts and offer a reinterpretation of “strengthening by reinforcement.” The reconceptualization in terms of the MLBS renders the concept of response strength superfluous. We conclude by highlighting the importance of theoretical reconsideration, putting aside difficulties that arise when attempting to validate strength by empirical means.