Bridging the schism between behavioral and cognitive analyses.
ABA and cognitive psychology share a dictionary; use it to build faster teams.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Davis et al. (1994) wrote a think-piece, not an experiment.
They asked: Can we swap words between behavior analysis and cognitive psychology without losing meaning?
The team mapped common ABA terms like "operant" and "establishing operation" onto cognitive phrases such as "production systems."
What they found
The two camps talk past each other, yet describe the same events.
A simple translation table lets both sides read the same data and plan joint studies.
How this fits with other research
Timberlake (1993) set the stage. That paper first stitched different reinforcement models into one system, showing integration is possible.
Zigman et al. (1997) later used computer runs to back the idea, proving the bridge could hold weight.
Fisher (2023) widened the view again, urging BCBAs to track whole patterns across settings, not single responses.
Together these works form a 30-year arc: first unify inside behavior analysis, then link with cognitive science, finally zoom out to whole-life systems.
Why it matters
You already speak ABA. This paper gives you a second language for team meetings. When the school psychologist mentions "working memory updates," you can quietly translate to "establishing operations" and keep the plan coherent. Try it next time you write a behavior plan: add a short cognitive label in parentheses. The team nods faster, and collaboration starts sooner.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one target behavior in a current case, write the operational definition, then add the closest cognitive term in brackets—e.g., 'Attention shift [task switching].' Share it with the team and note who responds quicker.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
A major schism in modern scientific psychology has occurred between behavior analysts and cognitive psychologists. The two groups speak in different languages, but the languages can be translated so that they are mutually understandable; when either language is translated into the other, similarities emerge from seeming differences. We draw an analogy between the basic units of behavior analysis (the operant and the establishing operation) and cognitive psychology (the production). We argue that both units describe behavior as a function of motivative and discriminative antecedents. In addition, the two perspectives account in analogous ways for ongoing changes in motivation and for control by verbal statements. Adherents of the two perspectives have experimentally analyzed some of the same problems and fashioned similar solutions for applied problems. We conclude that many of the commonly cited differences between the two perspectives are the result of misunderstanding, and that the real differences need not preclude communication and collaboration. The schism can be bridged.
The Behavior analyst, 1994 · doi:10.1007/BF03392653