Behavioral history: A definition and some common findings from two areas of research.

Farrant et al. (1998) read across two big piles of studies. One pile came from basic animal labs. The other came from drug studies with animals.

They pulled out every mention of "behavioral history." Then they listed what those histories did to later behavior.

The same pattern showed up in both piles. Past schedules, doses, or response rates left a mark on new sessions.

Sometimes the mark faded fast. Sometimes it stuck around. The key point: history effects are real in both literatures.

Hirai et al. (2011) extends this idea to humans. Adults who first worked on a fast-rate schedule later responded faster under a new slow schedule. The old history peeked through.

Kearns (2025) and Friman (2014) show the drug side keeps growing. They use price and dose curves to explain why rats choose drug levers. Farrant et al. (1998) already said we should link those drug curves to basic operant history.

Smith et al. (1997) looks similar but talks about antecedents, not history. Antecedents are events right before behavior. History is further back. The papers fit together: both past and recent events guide current responding.

When a client’s performance surprises you, look back two weeks, not just two minutes. A prior DRL program can still slow responding even after you switch to FR. Probe brief reversals to see if old patterns pop back out. Chart those probes; they tell you when history has truly cleared.