Resolving Barriers to an Applied Science of the Human Condition: Rule Governance and the Verbal Behavior of Applied Scientists.

Ivancic et al. (2019) looked at how behavior analysts talk about rules. They asked, "Do our own words block us from seeing what clients actually do?"

The paper is a think-piece, not an experiment. It uses Skinner’s idea of rule-governed behavior to explain why applied scientists keep using weak methods even when data say stop.

The team says we follow verbal rules like "use RCTs" or "p < .05" even when those rules hurt our work with real people.

This rule-following keeps us from noticing when a client does better with a simpler, non-standard plan.

Israel (1978) saw the same problem forty years earlier. That paper said fights inside behavior analysis are really fights between theory talk and tech talk. Martin updates the story: our talk itself is the trap.

Sorrell et al. (2025) and Allen et al. (2016) show the fix. Both used flexible video or mixed-reality coaching so teachers could see child data right away. Their trainees broke old rules and still got good outcomes.

Hinson (1988) and Joslyn et al. (2024) also warn about rigid rules, but they target stats instead of words. Together these papers form one big warning: any rule you can’t test against today’s data will slow you down.

Next time you catch yourself saying, "We have to run five baseline points," stop. Ask, "Did the last two points already show the trend?" Check your rule against the client in front of you. If the data say move, move. That small pause keeps science tied to people, not to slogans.