Affectively-Align & Culturally Aware ABA Notebook

(Behavioral Change Procedures class Packback Question 2 of 8)

In one of my part-time professional settings, I’ve observed the power of reinforcement principles in shaping new skills. However, I recently reflected on a more complex scenario involving a client’s reported fear of spiders—a private event that visibly influenced their public behavior (avoidance, distress vocalizations).

The principles at play seemed to be negative reinforcement: the client’s avoidance behaviors were maintained by the removal or avoidance of the feared stimulus (spiders). This successful escape negatively reinforced the fear cycle, making it stronger. This led me to think of intervention. A common approach for disruptive fear-based behaviors might be a DRO, a procedure where “reinforcement is delivered whenever the problem behavior has not occurred during a predetermined interval” (Cooper et al, 2020). Yet, applying DRO to the “feeling” of fear presents a conceptual and ethical challenges. Is reinforcing the mere absence of outward distress an adequate or compassionate treatment for an underlying emotional experience?

So, because fear is a private event with a public behavioral component, can a procedural approach like DRO be a part of an ethical intervention for phobias? Furthermore, given that the ultimate goal is a meaningful change in the client’s life, how could we design such an intervention from the start to promote generalization—ensuring new skills translate from the therapy room to a park or home?

I am curious if the answer lies in integrating traditional ABA procedures with other behavioral frameworks. For example, psychologist Dr. Steven C. Hayes and his colleagues developed ACT and its underlying relational frame theory especially to address human language, cognition, and private events like fear and avoidance. RFT provides a functional contextual account of human cognition, while ACT offers evidence-based methods to increase psychological flexibility-the ability to be present, open up, and do what matters (Hayes et al, 2012)

Could a modern, process-based approach that merges the procedural clarity of DRO with the contextual and values-focused work of ACT create a more “affectively-aligned” and generalizable intervention? What would such an integrated model look like in practice, and how would we measure its success?

References:

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis (3^rd ed.) Peason. 

Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C. C., & Roane, H. S. (2021). Handbook of Applied Behavior Analysis (2nd ed.). Guilford Publications. 

Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2012). Acceptance and commitment therapy: The process and practice of mindful change (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press. 

Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10(2), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1977.10-349