Countercontrol in behavior analysis.

Delprato (2002) wrote a think-piece, not an experiment. The paper asks one question: why did we stop talking about countercontrol?

The author walks through Skinner’s original idea. When people push back against control, their escape can punish the controller. That push-back is countercontrol.

The paper argues the idea is still sound and should live in today’s ABA.

There are no data. The finding is a stance: countercontrol is real, measurable, and useful.

If you leave it out of your training or your functional analysis, you miss why some clients fight back.

Spencer et al. (2022) picks up the same baton twenty years later. They keep the name countercontrol but swap the lens. Instead of Skinner’s plain operant talk, they use Relational Frame Theory. Push-back is now rule-governed, not just reflexive escape.

Greer (1982) beat both papers to the punch. That author already used countercontrol as a battle plan: form committees, grab grant money, push AERA out of the driver’s seat. Delprato (2002) widens the lens from policy fight to everyday clinical work.

Konstantareas et al. (1999) gives you the kid-side view. Their single-case tests show how tiny task cues spark escape-maintained problem behavior. Delprato (2002) labels that same escape as possible countercontrol: the child’s behavior may punish the adult’s demands.

Next time a client argues, walks off, or shuts down, ask: is this simple escape, or is it countercontrol that once punished someone else’s rules? Add social-power questions to your interviews. Watch for escape that makes you, the teacher, or the parent back off. Name it, measure it, and you can shape safer ways for the client to gain control without war.