The analysis of human behavior in context.
The field grew fastest when rat and human researchers shared ideas—keep the conversation alive.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Sidman (2004) wrote a position paper. He asked behavior analysts to bring human and animal labs back together.
He said the split hurts both sides. We lose good ideas when the groups stop talking.
What they found
The paper found no new data. It showed that early work grew fast when rat and human teams shared tools.
Murray warned that separate conferences and journals now keep the groups apart.
How this fits with other research
Reed (1991) said the split is natural and we should accept it. Sidman (2004) pushed back and said we must fight the split.
St Peter (2017) updated the worry. The field is now drifting into basic versus applied camps, not just human versus animal.
Harte et al. (2023) give a live example. They show how Relational Frame Theory can link basic language work to ACT sessions in clinics.
Why it matters
You can act on this today. Pick one animal study from your last journal club and ask, "How could I test this with people?" Share the idea with a basic lab partner or on social media. Small cross-talk keeps the field one family instead of two tribes.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Email a university lab and ask to swap recent articles on your shared topic.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Does the name of the special interest group, "The Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior," imply that those who analyze the behavior of human animals must organize themselves apart from those who analyze the behavior of nonhuman animals? Is the use of nonhumans in experiments really not relevant to the analysis of the behavior of humans? If so, then something must have changed. Many differences exist, of course, between the behavior of humans and nonhumans-humans, for example, cannot fly under their own power-but have we really isolated differences in principle, differences that require separate organizations for the study of each? I will try to indicate why I believe this is a serious concern, where the concern comes from, and what, perhaps, might be done to maintain what was once a flourishing bidirectional relation between research with humans and nonhumans, in both basic and applied research.
The Behavior analyst, 2004 · doi:10.1007/BF03393179