Cognition, behavior, and the experimental analysis of behavior.
Reinforcement can be described in many languages—pick the one that solves the problem in front of you.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The author asked a simple question: why limit ourselves to one language when we talk about behavior?
He wrote a think-piece urging behavior analysts to borrow words and tools from cognitive science, math, and computer models.
The paper is pure argument—no new data, just a call to open the clubhouse doors.
What they found
No graphs or p-values here. The punchline is permission: you can describe reinforcement with brain talk, equations, or flowcharts.
The core claim is that different vocabularies can sit beside Skinner’s three-term contingency without breaking anything.
How this fits with other research
Baum (2018) took the idea and ran with it. He swapped tiny response units for big "activities" stretched across time. This molar view gives the 1984 wish a working shape.
Cox (2026) shows one way to do it. She mines Twitter data and builds computer models of verbal communities—exactly the kind of computational language Hobson (1984) said we should welcome.
Malagodi (1986) pushes the same open-door policy but toward culture instead of computers. Together the three papers form a ladder: invite new words (1984), then apply them to culture (1986), then to real-time data streams (2026).
Why it matters
If you only speak "three-term contingency," you may miss solutions sitting in other fields. Try adding a graph model, a quick simulation, or cognitive shorthand to your next case meeting. The client doesn’t care which lens you use—only that it works.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add one non-behavioral metric—like a network graph or cognitive cue—to your next functional assessment and see if the team understands the case faster.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
A case history illustrates how one research program in the experimental analysis of behavior evolved somewhat differently from the modal research program represented in this journal. A chief issue that seems to be responsible for this difference is the role attributed to theory in behavioral research: Skinner's views on the nature and function of theory and on the nature of observation combine to produce a certain kind of picture of behavior. The classic conception of reinforcement contingencies is tied to this particular picture. But this picture may be incompatible with, and certainly is different from, other possible pictures. Reinforcement contingencies that place greater emphasis on the local temporal patterning of behavior seem tied to some of these alternative pictures of what behavior is. These other pictures encourage a wide range of theoretical approaches, including cognitive ones, various kinds of mathematical analyses, and computer-simulation methods to characterize entire behavior streams. In the future, perhaps the experimental analysis of behavior will accept a somewhat different range of views on the nature and function of theory, a correspondingly different set of experimental methods, and alternative ways of talking about behavior.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1984 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1984.42-407