Foundational Knowledge Flashcards

A behavior analyst is evaluating a client's behavior using the Matching Law. The client divides their time between two reinforcement schedules: Schedule A delivers 15 reinforcers/hour and Schedule B delivers 5 reinforcers/hour. According to the strict matching equation, what proportion of responses should occur on Schedule A?

Answer: 0.75

The Matching Law (Herrnstein, 1961) predicts that response allocation matches the relative rate of reinforcement. Schedule A delivers 15 out of a total of 20 reinforcers/hour (15+5), so the predicted proportion of responses on A = 15/20 = 0.75.

Which of the following best distinguishes a 'motivating operation' (MO) from a 'discriminative stimulus' (SD) at a functional level?

Answer: An SD evokes behavior by signaling reinforcer availability, while an MO alters the value of the reinforcer and the current frequency of behaviors that produce it

Motivating operations have two effects: (1) value-altering — they change the reinforcing effectiveness of a stimulus, and (2) behavior-altering — they increase or decrease the current frequency of behavior that has been reinforced by that stimulus. SDs only signal the availability of reinforcement without changing its value. This functional distinction is critical in ABAT foundational knowledge.

A researcher reports that a behavior intervention package reduced self-injurious behavior (SIB) from a baseline mean of 40 responses/session to a treatment mean of 8 responses/session. The PND (Percentage of Non-overlapping Data) is calculated at 100%. What is the primary limitation of relying solely on PND to evaluate this intervention's effectiveness?

Answer: PND ignores the magnitude and trend of data points, treating all non-overlapping points equally regardless of effect size

PND only counts whether data points fall outside the range of the most extreme baseline data point; it ignores how far outside they fall, the trend within phases, variability, and effect size. A 100% PND score looks the same whether behavior dropped by 1 response or 100. This is why measures like Tau-U or IRD are often preferred for more nuanced single-case effect size estimation.

In Sidman's analysis, which of the following correctly describes the relationship between avoidance behavior and the S-S (shock-shock) interval versus the R-S (response-shock) interval?

Answer: Avoidance responding is maintained when the R-S interval is shorter than the S-S interval, because a response postpones shock by resetting the R-S clock

In Sidman's (1953) free-operant avoidance paradigm, shocks occur at fixed S-S intervals unless the organism responds, which resets the R-S countdown clock. Responding is adaptive precisely because each response postpones the next shock by the R-S interval — which is longer than zero but operates independently of a warning signal. This is a defining feature of 'free-operant' or 'unsignaled' avoidance. No exteroceptive warning stimulus is required for the procedure.

A client demonstrates that 'red' and 'rojo' (Spanish for red) are interchangeable stimuli — seeing a red card evokes saying 'rojo,' and hearing 'rojo' evokes pointing to a red card. This relationship is best described as evidence of:

Answer: Derived stimulus relations within an equivalence class

Stimulus equivalence (Sidman & Tailby, 1982) is demonstrated when trained relations yield untrained derived relations including reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity. When 'red object,' 'red,' and 'rojo' become interchangeable without direct training of every pairing, they form an equivalence class. Derived stimulus relations — not mere generalization — explain the emergence of untrained bidirectional and transitive responding among class members.

During a functional analysis, a therapist delivers brief attention contingent on self-injurious behavior (SIB) in one condition, removes demands contingent on SIB in a second condition, and provides no programmed consequences in a third condition. The client's SIB rate is highest during the no-programmed-consequences condition. Which interpretation is most consistent with this pattern?

Answer: SIB is maintained by automatic reinforcement (sensory consequences)

In a standard Iwata et al. (1982/1994) functional analysis, the 'alone' or 'no interaction' condition controls for automatic reinforcement — behavior that is intrinsically reinforced by the sensory consequences of the behavior itself. If SIB is highest in this condition, where social contingencies (attention, escape) are absent, it suggests the behavior is self-reinforcing (automatic). This distinguishes it from socially mediated functions.