The place of the human subject in the operant laboratory.
Human operant lab studies are still vital—run quick adult pilots to validate your procedures before clinical use.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Wolchik et al. (1982) wrote a position paper. They asked why behavior analysts rarely run human operant labs.
The authors said we should test basic principles with adult volunteers in controlled rooms. They claimed ethics and demand effects can be handled with good design.
What they found
The paper did not report new data. It argued that human lab work is under-used but still needed.
Without these studies, the field risks building treatments on shaky ground.
How this fits with other research
Winett et al. (1991) picked up the same thread nine years later. They again said applied stories cannot replace lab tests.
Saini et al. (2020) show the call was heard. Their review found dozens of human renewal experiments run after 1982.
Schmitt (2000) gave a road map: mine the Lattal & Perone handbook and adapt lab tasks for clients. Together, the papers trace a forty-year push to keep basic human work alive.
Why it matters
If you design interventions, remember the lab is your testing ground. Run small pilot sessions with typical adults to check if your procedure really changes behavior. One free option: replicate a simple reinforcement schedule with coworkers and graph the rate. You will spot flaws before you take the plan to a child with autism.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Test your next token system with two typical adults for ten minutes each—graph responses to see if the schedule actually reinforces.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Although laboratory study of human behavior seems an obvious vehicle for strengthening the scientific base of behavior analysis, the place of the human subject within the operant laboratory remains problematic. The prevailing research strategy has been to link principles developed with animals to human affairs, either through interpretation of naturally occurring human behaviors or through application of the principles to the solution of human problems. The paucity of laboratory research on human operant behavior derives from several misconceptions: the possibility that experimental demand characteristics and pre-experimental behavioral dispositions of human subjects contaminate the results; that ethical considerations place undue constraint on research topics and experimental designs; and that uncontrollable variation in subjects' histories and other relevant personal characteristics prevents observation of reliable functional relations. We argue that these problems do not pose insurmountable obstacles to the experimental analysis of human behavior; that adequate methods of control and analysis are available; and that operant techniques, by emphasizing experimentally imposed contingencies, are well suited for the laboratory study of human behavior.
The Behavior analyst, 1982 · doi:10.1007/BF03392383