Intersections of behavior analysis with cognitive models of contingency detection.

Ghaziuddin (1997) wrote a theory paper. He asked: How do babies learn that their actions make things happen? Cognitive psychologists say babies form mental maps. M says we can explain the same data with simple if-then rules.

He re-examined classic infant contingency experiments. He showed the results fit a basic rule: when the baby's kick is followed by a mobile spin within two seconds, kicking increases.

The mobile moves right after the kick. The kick rate doubles. No hidden brain software is needed. Just observable time and probability.

M showed one equation—conditional probability—predicts the learning curve as well as any cognitive model.

Parrott (1984) made the same point earlier for private events. He said thoughts matter only when we can trace them back to public if-then histories. M extends that logic to babies who cannot even talk yet.

Taub et al. (1994) later used the same fight-plan in AIDS prevention. They swapped social-cognitive variables for real-world contingencies and boosted condom use. The tactic is identical: replace invisible constructs with visible contingencies.

Jiménez et al. (2022) now wrap all these cases into one framework. They call infant contingency detection a “basic behavioral repertoire.” The 1997 paper is listed inside their review as a building block, not a rival.

When you write a plan for a non-verbal client, skip mental-state goals. Program clear if-then relations: eye-contact gets tickles, PECS card gets goldfish. Watch the rate change and you have your data—no mind-reading required.