Grounding applied animal behavior practices in the experimental analysis of behavior

Lattal et al. (2022) wrote a narrative review. They looked at common animal-training tactics like clicker timing, food schedules, and chaining. The authors asked: do these tactics hold up when we test them against basic EAB findings?

They argue that trainers often borrow procedures without experimental proof. The paper calls for the same lab checks we use for autism interventions.

The review found no gold-standard tests for most pet and zoo practices. Popular cues, reinforcers, and extinction plans are rarely run through reversal or parametric designs. The authors map four areas that need vetting: reinforcement, extinction, chaining, and stimulus control.

Kurland et al. (2022) answers the call. They map the clicker protocol “loopy training” onto shaping and chaining principles. Their paper shows one way to do the experimental check Lattal wants.

Mace (1994) said the same thing first. That paper laid out a three-step chain: animal model, human lab, natural test. Lattal et al. (2022) keeps the chain but focuses it on animal training.

Matson et al. (2011) catalogs every animal study in JABA. The catalog forms the base that Lattal now urges us to test. No clash—just an update from list to validation plan.

If you write behavior plans for dogs, parrots, or zoo species, treat each tactic like an intervention. Run a quick reversal or parametric check before you call it evidence-based. Start with one procedure this week—maybe your cue delay—and plot the data. Your furry clients deserve the same rigor we give kids.