Reconceptualizing the Interaction of Behavior and Environment
Erase "response strength" from your ABA vocabulary—describe behavior change as selection at many levels instead.
01Research in Context
What this study did
JChristensen et al. (2024) wrote a theory paper. They asked: Do we need the idea of "response strength"?
Their answer: No. Replace it with the Multilevel Model of Behavioral Selection.
The model says behavior changes through selection at many levels, not through a hidden force called strength.
What they found
The authors show that "response strength" is extra baggage. It adds nothing we can see or measure.
Selection at genetic, neural, and behavioral levels explains the same data more cleanly.
Blocking, reinforcement, and extinction all fit the new picture without the old term.
How this fits with other research
Iivanainen (1998) said the same thing earlier. That paper told us to treat variability as information, not noise. JChristensen et al. (2024) build on that anti-essentialist stance and give it a new name.
Poling et al. (2020) also want to drop jargon. They targeted "contingency." JP et al. target "response strength." Both papers agree: clearer words make better practitioners.
Iannaccone et al. (2023) tested reinforcer quality in DRA. Their data still hold; JP et al. just describe them without invoking strength. The lab work and the theory match.
Why it matters
You can skip "response strength" in reports and supervision. Say "the response was selected because..." and name the level: genes, brain, or environment. Trainees learn faster when you remove ghost terms. Next time a graph climbs, describe the selection story, not an unseen force.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Replace every "response strength" in your notes with the visible selection event that produced the change.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The concept of response strength and the process of strengthening by reinforcement are controversial in terms of their explanatory power. We clarify potential theoretical misconceptions following from a strength-based account such as essentialist thinking and circular reasoning. These problems also arise in the practice of latent variable modeling in psychometrics. To solve these conceptual problems, we discuss the Multilevel Model of Behavioral Selection (MLBS; Borgstede & Eggert, 2021) as an alternative theoretical framework. We use blocking from Pavlovian conditioning as an example to demonstrate how the MLBS framework prevents misconceptions arising from strength-based accounts and how it provides a more parsimonious and coherent explanation of the phenomenon. We illustrate the need for precisely defined and theoretically meaningful concepts and offer a reinterpretation of "strengthening by reinforcement." The reconceptualization in terms of the MLBS renders the concept of response strength superfluous. We conclude by highlighting the importance of theoretical reconsideration, putting aside difficulties that arise when attempting to validate strength by empirical means.
, 2024 · doi:10.1007/s40614-024-00417-1