Commit Heresy: Stop Using “Contingency”

Poling et al. (2020) wrote a position paper. They did not run an experiment.

The authors argue the word "contingency" confuses teachers, parents, and even BCBAs. They say we should delete it from our reports and talks.

Instead of writing "the contingency was altered," they want us to spell out the exact if-then relation: "When Joe hits, staff give a 2-min break."

The paper finds no numbers. It finds frustration. People guess what "contingency" means. Some think it is a contract. Others think it is a prize.

The authors say plain words remove the guesswork and make plans easier to follow.

Two camps use the same word. Iannaccone et al. (2021) and Drifke et al. (2020) still label their procedures "contingency-based." They show the term lives on in 2020 and 2021 studies.

JChristensen et al. (2024) join the anti-jargon side. They tell us to drop "response strength" the same way Poling wants us to drop "contingency." Both papers push for cleaner language.

Hall (1992) gives a concrete example. The study arranges "stimulus-reinforcer contingencies" in pigeons. Poling would rewrite that line as "food followed the red light only when the bird pecked." Same setup, no buzzword.

If you write behavior plans, this paper is a style guide. Swap "the contingency was changed" for the real rule: "When Maya asks nicely, she gets the iPad for 3 min." Parents understand it. Paras can do it. Insurance reviewers smile. Try it in your next report and watch questions drop.