|
|
|
|
History
and MIssion
At the time the EAHB SIG was founded in
1984, only a small proportion of basic empirical research in
Behavior Analysis involved human subjects (Perone, 1985), although
a robust tradition in Applied Behavior Analysis has been developing
since the 1950s. The EAHB-SIG was established to "encourage
the development of a large and varied literature reflecting the
entire range of analytical questions which require human subjects'
responding under relatively controlled laboratory environments"
(Johnston, 1983, p. 1). Today, human subjects are the focus of
nearly half of the basic behavior-analytic research (Hyten &
Reilly, 1992), although the range of questions addressed by this
research is limited (Dougherty, 1994).
Within Behavior Analysis, the appropriate role of basic research
with humans remains a matter of debate. Some hold that at least
some fundamental principles are better investigated in other
species, in part because humans bring such varied and unknown
histories into the laboratory that they make for poor behavioral
assays (e.g., Branch, 1991). From this perspective, human studies
are best used as tests for generality rather than essential proving
grounds for behavioral theory. Others hold that all species have
idiosyncracies that require special adaptations of laboratory
methods, and that investigators have not given development of
method serious enough consideration in translating the nonhuman
research tradition in Behavior Analysis to research questions
involving humans (e.g., Baron, Perone, & Galizio, 1991).
Still others have emphasized the compelling questions that apply,
under normal circumstances, only to humans, and that have generally
been given short shrift in empirical behavior analysis (Critchfield,
1995; Hake, 1982).
All of the perspectives mentioned above are contistent with a
need for continued development of an experimental analysis of
behavior (Skinner, 1966; Iversen & Lattal, 1991) at the human
level. The prospects for productive synergy between basic and
applied research provides further impetus (e.g., Mace, 1994).
Within, this context, the mission of the EAHB-SIG remains to
promote the experimental analysis of behavior with human subjects
as a means of addressing important fundamental questions about
human problems and human nature.
References
Baron, A., Perone, M., & Galizio, M.
(1991). Analyzing the reinforcement process at the human level:
Can application and behavioristic interpretation replace laboratory
research? The Behavior Analyst, 14, 95-105.
Branch, M. N. (1991). On the difficulty of studying "basic"
behavioral processes in humans. The Behavior Analyst, 14,
107-110.
Buskist, W. F., & Johnston, J. M. (1988). Laboratory lore
and research practices in the experimental analysis of human
behavior. The Behavior Analyst, 11, 41-42.
Critchfield, T. S. (1995). Opportunities lost and found. Experimental
Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 13, 5.
Dougherty, D. M. (1994). The selective renaissance of the experimental
analysis of human behavior. The Behavior Analyst, 17,
169-174.
Hake, D. F. (1982). The basic-applied continuum and the possible
evolution of human operant social and verbal research. The
Behavior Analyst, 5, 21-28.
Hyten, C., & Reilly, M. (1992). The renaissance of the experimental
analysis of human behavior. The Behavior Analyst, 15,
109-114.
Iversen, I. H., & Lattal, K. A. (Eds.) (1991). Experimental
analysis of behavior, Part 1 and Part 2. Amsterdam, Elsevier.
Johnston, J. M. (1983). EAHB Special Interest Group: A brief
history. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin,
1, 1.
Mace, F. C. (1994). Basic research needed for stimulating the
development of behavioral technologies. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 61, 529-550.
Perone, M. (1985). On the impact of human operant research: Assymetrical
patterns of cross-citation between human and nonhuman research.
The Behavior Analyst, 8, 185-189.
Skinner, B. F. (1966). What is the experimental analysis of behavior?
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 9,
213-218.
|
