Just because it looks like a duck…

…swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck doesn’t mean it is a duck.

Sometimes, BCBAs think we are talking in plain English, but we really aren’t. Many people, including many BCBAs are confused about what we mean when we say “those behaviors are the same” and “those behaviors are different.” This common misunderstanding can really inhibit communication, and has even led to serious criticisms that don’t make any sense.

I once heard a famous critic of behavior analysis argue that there is a huge difference between a child who looks at an adult in order to gain a reward and a child who looks at an adult out of love. Of course, no behavior analyst would disagree. That’s not a criticism, that’s common sense. The critic clearly didn’t understand how behavior analysts define when behaviors are the same and when they are different.

Let’s explain this concept using Plain English and avoiding technical jargon. BCBAs consider two behaviors the same if they occur for the same reason (see note below). Even if the two behaviors look very different, if they occur for the same reason, they are the same behavior. For example, a child may engage in many different problem behaviors (e.g., self-injury, aggression, tantrums, fall to the floor, screaming), but in most cases they usually occur for the similar reasons, and are therefore not really different behaviors.

On the other hand, sometimes behaviors may look almost identical. But if they occur for different reasons, they are different behaviors. For example, if you are reading a book for enjoyment, that is a different behavior than reading a textbook because there is an exam tomorrow morning.

Therefore, in behavior analysis, the duck test doesn’t work. Often you can’t tell just by observing why a behavior is occurring. If the behavior isn’t occurring for reasons that are natural, it likely won’t last in the long run.

We need to be very careful when we say things like he is doing so well sharing his toys, playing with friends, participating in class, eating his vegetables, or refraining from problem behaviors. Those things might look great. But if the child is doing it for contrived reasons, that’s the wrong behavior and not likely to last.

So, the critic may have a point. He is wrong on the behavior analysis because he doesn’t understand the jargon. But he may be correct that in practice, progress may be exaggerated because we often don’t report on the reason why those new positive behaviors are occurring.

NOTE: For the picky BCBAs out there- I explained it this way in order to avoid explaining response classes, topography vs function, and other difficult to understand concepts. That’s way beyond the score of this post. 

Behavior analytic services should only be delivered in the context of a professional relationship. Nothing written in this blog should be considered advice for any specific individual. The purpose of the blog is to share my experience, not to provide treatment. Please get advice from a professional before making changes to behavior analytic services being delivered. Nothing in this blog including comments or correspondence should be considered an agreement for Dr. Barry D. Morgenstern to provide services or establish a professional relationship outside of a formal agreement to do so. I attempt to write this blog in “plain English” and avoid technical jargon whenever possible. But all statements are meant to be consistent with behavior analytic literature, practice, and the professional code of ethics. If, for whatever reason, you think I’ve failed in the endeavor, let me know and I’ll consider your comments and make revisions, if appropriate. Feedback is always appreciated as I’m always trying to Poogi.
Scroll to top