A Contextual Behavior Science Framework for Understanding How Behavioral Flexibility Relates to Anxiety.
Flexibility is not a new trait—just track how behavior shifts when contexts shift.
01Research in Context
What this study did
McGarty et al. (2018) wrote a theory paper. They asked: do we need a new 'behavioral flexibility' construct to explain anxiety? Their answer was no. They showed how contextual behavioral science already handles flexibility through basic ABA principles.
What they found
The authors found that flexibility is just the context–behavior relation. When contingencies change, the organism changes. That is already in our field. No new construct is needed.
How this fits with other research
Patton et al. (2020) seems to disagree. They measured flexibility with a scale and found it predicts adaptive skills in 216 autistic youth. But the two papers actually align: R et al. operationalized flexibility as varied responses across contexts, exactly what M et al. say ABA already tracks.
Petrovic et al. (2016) said ABA must stay flexible and data-driven. McGarty et al. (2018) build on that by telling us how: analyze the context, not a new trait.
Gur et al. (2023) reviewed 26 studies on parent flexibility. They endorse ACT to boost it. M et al. remind us that ACT procedures are still contextual behavior analysis, so no new theory is required.
Why it matters
Stop adding 'flexibility goals' to plans. Instead, list the exact stimulus conditions and response variations you want. Write your data sheets to capture shifts across contexts. You will save time and stay inside pure ABA language that payers already understand.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Replace any 'will demonstrate flexibility' goal with two specific context–response sets you can count.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
There is a growing literature focusing on the emerging idea that behavioral flexibility, rather than particular emotion regulation strategies per se, provides greater promise in predicting and influencing anxiety-related psychopathology. Yet this line of research and theoretical analysis appear to be plagued by its own challenges. For example, middle-level constructs, such as behavioral flexibility, are difficult to define, difficult to measure, and difficult to interpret in relation to clinical interventions. A key point that some researchers have made is that previous studies examining flexible use of emotion regulation strategies (or, more broadly, coping) have failed due to a lack of focus on context. That is, examining strategies in isolation of the context in which they are used provides limited information on the suitability, rigid adherence, or effectiveness of a given strategy in that situation. Several of these researchers have proposed the development of new models to define and measure various types of behavioral flexibility. We would like to suggest that an explanation of the phenomenon already exists and that we can go back to our behavioral roots to understand this phenomenon rather than focusing on defining and capturing a new process. Indeed, thorough contextual behavioral analyses already yield a useful account of what has been observed. We will articulate a model explaining behavioral flexibility using a functional, contextual framework, with anxiety-related disorders as an example.
Behavior modification, 2018 · doi:10.1177/0145445517730830