Forgetting the lessons of history.

The author wrote a short think piece, not an experiment. He warned that behavior analysts rarely ask about a client’s past reinforcement history. He asked the field to start recording and studying these histories.

The paper gives no new data. It is a call to action.

The paper claims that forgotten or unknown learning histories can explain why some clients fail to progress. Knowing the history could help you pick better interventions.

Foster et al. (1979) showed the danger in real time. Kids who first learned with trial-and-error or fading later struggled when switched to stimulus shaping. Their early history blocked new learning.

Winett et al. (1991) found the same pattern with error-correction formats. Different past routines produced different later speeds, again showing that immediate procedural history changes outcomes.

Fienup et al. (2021) echoes the warning for mastery rules. The 80%-across-two-sessions rule is folklore because no one tracked how it developed. All three papers extend the 1990 plea: if you ignore history, you repeat weak practices.

Next time an intervention stalls, stop and interview the caregiver. Ask what past programs, rewards, or punishers were used. Write the answers in the file. Then test a new procedure that counters that specific history instead of repeating the same protocol.