From molecular to molar: a paradigm shift in behavior analysis.
Treat long, steady patterns of behavior as solid things, not flickers, and your data story gets clearer.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Baum (2002) wrote a theory paper. It says we should stop looking at tiny split-second responses. Instead, treat long chunks of behavior as real things.
The paper calls this the molar view. It is like watching a whole movie instead of single frames.
What they found
The author claims the molar view makes messy data look clean. Extended patterns of behavior line up better with the reinforcers that keep them going.
Tiny moment-to-moment shots, the molecular view, miss the big picture.
How this fits with other research
Warburg (2001) set the stage one year earlier with the same molar pitch. The 2002 paper repeats the call but labels it a full paradigm shift.
Shimp (2020) steps in later and says, "Use both." It shows how to plot 10-second counts and session totals side by side so you can pick the view that guides treatment.
Hineline (2001) also rejects the either-or fight. It urges multiscale analyses, sounding like Shimp (2020) before the tools existed.
Hatton et al. (1999) gives a live example. One child’s aggressive and communicative acts lined up with reinforcement at the molar level, backing the 2002 claim with real data.
Why it matters
If your treatment graph wiggles all over, zoom out. Plot total time or responses across the whole session. If the new picture matches the reinforcers you control, you have found the right unit to work with. You can still drop to micro levels when you need to teach a new step, but let the molar view tell you whether the day was a success.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a second y-axis that shows total responses per session next to your minute-by-minute count.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
A paradigm clash is occurring within behavior analysis. In the older paradigm, the molecular view, behavior consists of momentary or discrete responses that constitute instances of classes. Variation in response rate reflects variation in the strength or probability of the response class. The newer paradigm, the molar view, sees behavior as composed of activities that take up varying amounts of time. Whereas the molecular view takes response rate and choice to be "derived" measures and hence abstractions, the molar view takes response rate and choice to be concrete temporally extended behavioral allocations and regards momentary "responses" as abstractions. Research findings that point to variation in tempo, asymmetry in concurrent performance, and paradoxical resistance to change are readily interpretable when seen in the light of reinforcement and stimulus control of extended behavioral allocations or activities. Seen in the light of the ontological distinction between classes and individuals, extended behavioral allocations, like species in evolutionary taxonomy, constitute individuals, entities that change without changing their identity. Seeing allocations as individuals implies that less extended activities constitute parts of larger wholes rather than instances of classes. Both laboratory research and everyday behavior are explained plausibly in the light of concrete extended activities and their nesting. The molecular- view, because it requires discrete responses and contiguous events, relies on hypothetical stimuli and consequences to account for the same phenomena. One may prefer the molar view on grounds of elegance, integrative power, and plausibility.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2002 · doi:10.1901/jeab.2002.78-95