List of Figures

Figure 1.1	Descartes' model of how an external event might cause bodily movement.
Figure 1.2	A simple reflex and its connections to the spinal cord.
Figure 1.3	A typical arrangement for studying salivation in a conditioning experiment in Pavlov's 19th century laboratory.
Figure 1.4	Thorndike's puzzle box.
Figure 1.5	A Skinner box.
Figure 2.1	Essential features of a Skinner box for a rat, or other small rodent.
Figure 2.2	Event records, or "time lines", illustrating a contingency between, or independence of, Event A and Event B.
Figure 2.3	A cumulative recorder of a type that was used extensively until replaced by computer software systems.
Figure 2.4	Cumulative records obtained frofn four rats on their first session of operant conditioning.
Figure 2.5	Relative frequencies of several behaviors occurring in a Skinner box before and after operant conditioning of lever pressing.
Figure 2.6	Distribution of response forces when (A, upper graph) all responses with a force of more than 21 g were reinforced, and (B, lower graph) when all responses with a force of more than 36 g were reinforced.
Figure 3.1	Cumulative record of responding in extinction of lever press response previously reinforced with food.
Figure 3.2	Cumulative records of lever pressing for two rats reinforced with food 100 times and then transferred to a response independent food presentation schedule.
Figure 3.3	Apparatus used by Antonitis (1951) to reinforce nose poking.
Figure 3.4	Apparatus used for measuring aggression induced by extinction in a Skinner box.
Figure 3.5	Resistance to extinction of lever pressing as a function of the weight of the lever (or bar).
Figure 3.6	Spontaneous recovery from extinction of a rat's lever-press response.
Figure 3.7	Averaged cumulative response curves for the first (1), fifth (5), and tenth (10) sessions of extinction.
Figure 3.8	Average data for classical conditioning followed by extinction of rabbits' nictitating membrane response.
Figure 3.9	Typical cumulative records of performances maintained by four schedules of intermittent reinforcement.
Figure 4.1	Data of Pavlov (1927) on the development of differentiation, or discrimination, by two individual dogs in salivary conditioning experiments.
Figure 4.2	A pigeon Skinner box fitted with an optical system to project pure light on to the pecking key.
Figure 4.3	Numbers of key pecking responses emitted by pigeons in the presence of 11 different wavelengths of light, projected one at a time on to the pecking key.
Figure 4.4	Van Houten and Rudolph's data showing generaliza- tion gradients for pigeons that had been trained in the presence of 1000 Hz auditory frequency, either in the dark (no key light) or with an illuminated key.
Figure 4.5	Cumulative records of lever pressing by a rat on a multiple FI 5-minute FR20 schedule (upper panel), and on a multiple FI 5-minute FR40 schedule (lower panel).
Figure 4.6	A two-key pigeon Skinner box.
Figure 4.7	Cumulative records of key pecking by a pigeon a concurrent FR100 FI 5-minute schedule of reinforcement.
Figure 4.8	Inhibitory generalization gradients for groups of pigeons on successive test days with VI reinforcement at all line-tilt stimulus values.
Figure 4.9	Schematic diagram of a typical layout of stimuli presented simultaneously (or with onset of A1 slightly before the other stimuli) on a computer screen for matching-to sample training of the A-B relationship.
Figure 4.10	Outcome of stimulus equivalence class training.
Figure 5.1	A shuttle box designed to study aversive contingencies with rats.
Figure 5.2	Escape response rates as a function of the intensity of three different aversive stimuli.
Figure 5.3	Event records or timelines illustrating the procedures of (A) free operant avoidance; (b) discriminated avoidance; and (c) escape.
Figure 5.4	Three measures of behavior during acquisition of a discriminated lever-press avoidance response.
Figure 5.5	Cumulative records of lever press avoidance during training of a rat on free operant avoidance.
Figure 5.6	Cumulative records of the punished responding of human participants on a VI schedule of reinforce- ment under three conditions.
Figure 5.7	Response rate, with and without a punishment contingency for three human experimental participants as a function of reinforcement rate in the components of a multiple VI schedule.
Figure 5.8	Cumulative records showing developments of conditional suppression in a rat lever pressing for water reinforcement on a variable-interval schedule.
Figure 6.1	The Wisconsin general test apparatus.
Figure 6.2	Changes in rate of acquisition of discrimination processes.
Figure 6.3	Development of a learning set.
Figure 6.4	Performance of five species on a series of visual discrimination problems.
Figure 6.5	Patterns of geometric symbols grouped according to a two-out-of-three polymorphous rule.
Figure 6.6	A set of cards used to study concept identification.
Figure 6.7	Average number of aggressive acts modeled by children as a function of consequences for the model, sex of child, and whether the child was reinforced for modeling.
Figure 6.8	Reinforced imitative and nonreinforced imitative responding by a single child during a sequence of different reinforcement conditions.
Figure 6.9	The behavior analytic account of dialog is like a tennis match with each person taking turns as speaker and listener.
Figure 6.10	An example of rule following.
Figure 7.1	A model of the behavior and environmental conditions to be assessed.
Figure 7.2	Example of interval recording.
Figure 7.3	Example of interval recording using multiple behaviors.
Figure 7.4	Example of interval recording with multiple persons.
Figure 7.5	Example of a scatterplot grid over a five-day period.
Figure 7.6	Functional analysis results of self-injury for two individuals.
Figure 8.1	hypothetical example of a single-case design graph depicting the major features of graphic display.
Figure 8.2	Hypothetical example of a stable data path (Graph A) and variable data points (Graph B).
Figure 8.3	Stable baseline data (Graph A) allow for a clear interpretation of the effectiveness of treatment in the intervention phase.
Figure 8.4	There is a clear change in level between the last data point of the baseline phase and the first data point of the intervention phase in Graph A.
Figure 8.5	An increasing or decreasing trend in baseline data paths can be problematic if the subsequent interven- tion is designed to increase (Graph A) or decrease (Graph B) the target behavior respectively.
Figure 8.6	Percentage of intervals of stereotypy during transition between work activities for a man with autism.
Figure 8.7	Number of accident days per week for an adolescent girl with diurnal enuresis.
Figure 8.8	The number of self-identified designated drivers per evening during weekend evenings in a college campus bar.
Figure 8.9	An example of an ABABCBC design.
Figure 8.10	Percentage of correctly asking the question "What's that?" when pointing to a novel stimulus across baseline and instruction phases of a multiple baseline design for three students with autism.
Figure 8.11	The effects of a public posting intervention.
Figure 8.12	Percentage of intervals in which appropriate and inappropriate turn waiting, initiating interactions, and interacting with others was observed for a class of students with severe/profound hearing loss.
Figure 8.13	Use of a changing criterion design to systematically increase work units per minute for workers with developmental disabilities.
Figure 8.14	Total seconds of eye poking during four assessment conditions presented in an alternating treatments design.
Figure 8.15	The effects of experimenter-selected versus subject- selected reinforcers on responses per minute for four individuals with developmental disabilities.
Figure 9.1	Percentage of time that four participants engaged or manipulated items that were identified as preferred in the forced-choice assessment and preference assessment versus stimuli that were identified as highly preferred in the preference assessment only.
Figure 9.2	Percentage of intervals of problem and desirable classroom behavior for three students with emotional and behavioral problems under preferred and non- preferred curricular activities.
Figure 9.3	Daily mean percentage (N=10) of participation in exercises and games and the exercise session length during baseline and group contingency phases.
Figure 9.4	Responses per minute for three participants when no food (reinforcement) was presented (baseline conditions in the graph) and when food was presented contingent on responding under satiation and deprivation conditions.
Figure 9.5	Total number of hours each day a group of 44 clients participated in rehabilitative activities under conditions of reinforcement with tokens (first phase), independent or non-contingent presentations of tokens (second phase), and reinstatement of reinforcement with tokens (third phase).
Figure 9.6	Episodes of sleeping in class under baseline and DRI (differential reinforcement of academic performance) contingencies.
Figure 9.7	Hypothetical example of a brief functional analysis.
Figure 9.8	The rate of self-injury for Brenda.
Figure 9.9	Rate of eating across four participants under baseline and treatment conditions. Open data points represent data for one meal.
Figure 9.10	A comparison of a lean (FT 5 min) versus dense (FT 10 s) schedule of noncontingent reinforcement on destructive responses per minute with quadruplets.
Figure 9.11	Delayed prompting.
Figure 9. 12	Daily percentages of opportunities used by teachers to delay and by children to initiate, before (baseline) and after (intervention) teachers programmed delays with each of the six children.
Figure 9.13	An example of stimulus fading in which the stimulus prompt is gradually faded out.
Figure 9.14	An example of stimulus fading in which additional stimulus prompts are superimposed on the natural discriminative stimuli and gradually faded during instruction.
Figure 9.15	An example of stimulus shaping to teach word identification.
Figure 9.16	Percentage of independent mealtime skills for four individuals with profound developmental disabilities.
Figure 9.17	Cumulative number of untrained play topographies across toys for two children.
Figure 9.18	Conversational initiations per minute by participants to partners with and without disabilities across school settings.
Figure 10. 1	Duration of asthmatic responding at bedtime during baseline and extinction phases.
Figure 10. 2	Responses per minute of self-injurious behavior during baseline when attention is delivered contingent on SIB and during NCR intervention (phase 2 in the graph) when attention is delivered noncontingently.
Figure 10.3	Frequency of night wakings for seven children under an extinction intervention. The large solid dots represent nights in which the infant was ill.
Figure 10.4	Rate of self-injurious behavior (upper panel) and aggressive responses (lower panel) for an individual under baseline and extinction intervention.
Figure 10.5	The number of face slaps per minute when wrist weights were on and when they were off.
Figure 10.6	Percentage of intervals containing SIB and object manipulation during baseline (BL) and across effort (string-length) conditions for three participants.
Figure 10.7	Percentage of intervals of SIB maintained by sensory consequences.
Figure 10.8	Rates of self-choking by a deaf-blind man with mental retardation before and during water mist treatment and its generalization and follow-up.
Figure 10.9	Frequency of aggressive behavior of a young girl towards her younger sibling under baseline, DRO, and DRO plus verbal reprimand conditions.
Figure 10.10	Number of disruptions and aggressive behaviors per child per hour for 50 days in a day care center with follow-up at 1 and 2 months.
Figure 10.11	Number of arm bites (top panel) and mouthing incidents (bottom panel) under baseline, DRO alone, and movement suppression time-out.
Figure 10.12	Percentage of intervals with stereotypy across baseline, DRO, and time-out conditions in task (top panel) and leisure (bottom panel) contexts.
Figure 10.13	Number of stealing episodes each day for a group of 34 persons with developmental disabilities in an institutional setting.
Figure 10.14	Number of hits per day during school period.
Figure 11.1	Daily corrected percentage of sales for all salads during baseline and intervention (posters etc.) in a restaurant.
Figure 11.2	Mean revolutions pedaled per minute during baseline, VR 1 (VR range, 70 to 85), VR 2 (VR range, 90 to 115), VR 3 (VR range, 100 to 130), return to baseline, and return to VR 3 phases for obese and nonobese boys.
Figure 11.3	Percentage of contact situations in which gloves were worn by 4 nurses for consecutive 10-hr shifts.
Figure 11.4	Percentage of correct responses on simulation and self- administration probes for four children who were taught self-care of tracheotomies.
Figure 11.5	The yearly number of days lost from work (top graph) and work-related injuries (bottom graph), per million person hours worked under baseline and token economy conditions in both mines.
Figure 11.6	The percentage of R1 responses as a function of the percentage of reinforcements for that response alternative.
Figure 11.7	Amount of eye contact as a function of rate of social reinforcement.
Figure 11.8	Percentage of time that one experimental participant, Matt, allocated to performing arithmetic problems on the richer reinforcement schedule.
Figure 11.9	Pigeons trained to match A1 to B1 and A2 to B2, and to match B1 to C1 and B2 to C2, were tested for transitivity by presenting A1 or A2 as sample stimuli and C1 and C2 as comparison stimuli.