The glass ceiling is not fragile: A response to Odum (2000)

Odum (2000) criticized our recent conclusions about the participation of women in the experimental analysis of behavior (McSweeney & Swindell, 1998). We address her criticisms here. We argue against the need for statistical tests. We show that our conclusions still apply to all journals except the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior even when we include the senior editorial staff along with members of the editorial board. We argue that the data that Odum provides to show gender equity are limited, inconsistent with past findings, and hard to interpret in the absence of other data. Finally, we argue that Odum failed to address our most convincing argument for gender inequity and misinterpreted our suggestions for improvements

BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS AND WITHIN‐SESSION CHANGES IN RESPONDING

Pigeons and rats responded on fixed‐ratio schedules with requirements ranging from 5 to 120 responses. Consistent with past results from several schedules and procedures, responding usually changed systematically within experimental sessions. The within‐session changes were usually larger and were less symmetrical around the middle of the session for schedules that provided higher, rather than lower, rates of reinforcement. These results suggest that similar variables contribute to within‐session changes in responding under different schedules. When an economic demand function was fit to the data, the intensity and elasticity of demand for food and the percentage of the variance accounted for decreased within sessions, although the trend for elasticity did not reach statistical significance for pigeons. These results suggest that relatively short sessions should be used to study economic demand in open economies and that demand may differ at different times in a session and in sessions of different lengths. Within‐session changes in intensity, but not necessarily elasticity, of demand are consistent with behavioral economic theories

HABITUATION TO THE REINFORCER MAY CONTRIBUTE TO MULTIPLE‐SCHEDULE BEHAVIORAL CONTRAST

Habituation to the reinforcer may contribute to multiple‐schedule behavioral contrast. According to this argument, reducing reinforcers in one component of a multiple schedule reduces habituation to the reinforcer. Reducing habituation enhances the value, or effectiveness, of the remaining reinforcers, producing positive contrast. Enriching the reinforcers in one component increases habituation to that reinforcer. Increasing habituation decreases the effectiveness of the reinforcer, producing negative contrast. Such an idea is simple and parsimonious. It is not contradicted by any well‐established finding in the contrast literature. It makes several tested and untested predictions that are unusual. However, habituation cannot explain all contrast. A complete explanation requires postulating that at least one additional mechanism, controlled by the conditions of reinforcement in the following component, also contributes to contrast

Women in applied behavior analysis

The status of women in applied behavior analysis was examined by comparing the participation of women in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis ( JABA ) to their participation in three similar journals. For all journals, the percentage of articles with at least one female author, the percentage of authors who are female, and the percentage of articles with a female first author increased from 1978 to 1997. Participation by women in JABA was equal to or greater than participation by women in the comparison journals. However, women appeared as authors on papers in special sections of Behavior Modification substantially more often when the editor was female than when the editor was male. In addition, female membership on the editorial boards of JABA, Behavior Modification , and Behaviour Research and Therapy failed to increase from 1978 to 1997. We conclude that a “glass ceiling” reduces the participation of women at the highest levels of applied behavior analysis and related fields