Behavior dynamics: One perspective.
Physics-based models let you predict and steer behavior without guessing about hidden thoughts.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Capaldi (1992) asked a simple question. Can we treat behavior like objects moving in space?
The paper built math models from physics. It used springs, pendulums, and chaotic systems to mimic how actions speed up, slow down, or swing between options.
What they found
The models fit both big trends (molar) and tiny moment-to-moment shifts (molecular).
One equation could look like a child switching from toy to toy. Another looked like a rat pressing a lever faster and faster.
How this fits with other research
McDowell et al. (2018) took the same physics idea and made virtual critters evolve. The digital animals picked the richer lever, just like real rats, proving the 1992 hunch works without brain talk.
Jiménez et al. (2022) folded this dynamical view into a bigger map. They say pivotal behaviors and behavioral cusps are simply special attractors in the same physics space.
Fantino (1981) showed ABA ideas spreading to new fields. Capaldi (1992) gave those spread-out workers a shared ruler to measure change.
Why it matters
If behavior follows physics rules, you can forecast it. Plot response rates on a graph, spot the pattern, then adjust reinforcement before problem behavior spikes. No mind reading needed—just math you already use for graphing data.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Graph a client's responses per minute for one week, draw the best-fit curve, and move reinforcement timing to the predicted peak.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Behavior dynamics is a field devoted to analytic descriptions of behavior change. A principal source of both models and methods for these descriptions is found in physics. This approach is an extension of a long conceptual association between behavior analysis and physics. A theme common to both is the role of molar versus molecular events in description and prediction. Similarities and differences in how these events are treated are discussed. Two examples are presented that illustrate possible correspondence between mechanical and behavioral systems. The first demonstrates the use of a mechanical model to describe the molar properties of behavior under changing reinforcement conditions. The second, dealing with some features of concurrent schedules, focuses on the possible utility of nonlinear dynamical systems to the description of both molar and molecular behavioral events as the outcome of a deterministic, but chaotic, process.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1992 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1992.57-249