Want to see more behavior? Consider institutional-level positive reinforcement

By A. Solomon Kurz

October 1, 2019


In their review of 160 articles in the Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science (JCBS), Newsome, Newsome, Fuller & Meyer (2019) argued prior JCBS authors have disproportionately relied on self-report measures to the neglect of more overt measures of behavior. I agree that increasing the frequency of more overt behavioral measures of behavior could potentially improve the quality of the scholarship within JCBS. To encourage these changes, we might consider a fuller analysis of the factors maintaining the status quo, and further discuss the practical ways we might reinforce the behaviors we desire among our fellow scientists. In this commentary, I offer several steps the leadership within JCBS and the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science (ACBS) might take to encourage these changes. With skillfully-applied positive reinforcement, we might use our science to improve our science.

Note. In the original paper, I mistakenly forgot to include the focal article by Newsom and colleagues (2019) in the reference section. Though we eventually caught the mistake in the publishing process, I was told it was too late to correct the mistake. Sigh. You can find their original article at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2018.11.005.

  title = {Want to see more behavior? Consider institutional-level positive reinforcement},
  author = {A. Solomon Kurz},
  journal = {Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science},
  year = 2019,
  volume = 14,
  page = 29–31,
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2019.08.006}
Posted on:
October 1, 2019
2 minute read, 224 words
behavior positive reinforcement meta-science validity
See Also: