Standing on the Shoulders of a Giant: Remembrances of Jack Michael,Part 2

In Part 1 of these remembrances of Jack Michael, we briefly described Jack’s history in terms of how he became a behavior analyst (Sundberg & Schlinger, 2021). We pointed out that he was one of the first to apply the principles of behavior analysis discovered in the experimental laboratory to the area of rehabilitation. In so doing, Jack was perhaps the first applied behavior analyst. In Part 1, some of his former students and close associates from his early years at the University of Houston, Arizona State University, and Western Michigan University—John Mabry, Grayson Osborne, Jon Bailey, Mark Sundberg, and J. Vincent Carbone—provided their personal tributes to Jack. In Part 2, we offer six more tributes that—with one exception, that of Ted Ayllon—provide insight into Jack’s work in the latter part of his career. In addition to Ted Ayllon, these tributes are from Jack’s students and close associates Hank Schlinger, Dave Palmer, John and Barb Esch, Carl Sundberg, and Caio Miguel. The authors provide insights not only into their views about Jack but also into their own lives. Collectively, they paint a picture of people from different backgrounds that all found their way to Jack Michael and to behavior analysis. To a person, they describe how their behavior, whether as scientists, practitioners, or both, was radically transformed as a result, and how they attribute that change largely to Jack’s influence.     

Use of a Modified Chaining Procedure with Textual Prompts to Establish Intraverbal Storytelling

Echoic, tact, and textual transfer procedures have been proven successful in establishing simple intraverbals (Braam and Poling Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 4, 279–302, 1983; Luciano Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 102, 346–357, 1986; Watkins et al. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 7, 69–81, 1989). However, these strategies may be ineffective for some children due to the complexity of the targeted intraverbals. The current study investigated the use of a novel procedure which included a modified chaining procedure and textual prompts to establish intraverbal behavior in the form of telling short stories. Visual prompts and rule statements were used with some of the participants in order to produce the desired behavior change. Results indicated that the procedure was effective for teaching retelling of short stories in three children with autism.     

Thirty Points About Motivation From Skinner’s Book Verbal Behavior

Skinner discussed the topic of motivation in every chapter of the book Verbal Behavior (1957), usually with his preferred terminology of “deprivation, satiation, and aversive stimulation.” In the current paper, direct quotations are used to systematically take the reader through 30 separate points made by Skinner in Verbal Behavior that collectively provide a comprehensive analysis of his position regarding the role of motivation in behavior analysis. In addition, various refinements and extensions of Skinner''s analysis by Jack Michael and colleagues (Laraway, Snycerski, Michael, & Poling, 2003; Michael, 1982, 1988, 1993, 2000, 2004, 2007) are incorporated, along with suggestions for research and applications for several of the points.     

Implementing the Verbal Behavior Milestones Assessment and Placement Program (VB-MAPP): Teaching Assessment Techniques

The Verbal Behavior Milestones Assessment and Placement Program (VB-MAPP) is an assessment tool used with individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and other language delays (Sundberg 2008). The milestones assessment section of the VB-MAPP is used to determine an individual’s current skill level. The results of the milestones assessment can be used to identify instructional goals and objectives. The current study examined the effects of behavioral skills training (BST) on the administration of the milestones assessment by two educational professionals. The BST intervention resulted in immediate increases in performance for both participants.     

Recombinative Generalization of Tacts Through Matrix Training with Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Foss (Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76, 450–459, 1968a; Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77, 341–344, 1968b) compared overlap and non-overlap instruction to promote recombinative response generalization using a matrix training procedure. In the present study, we used a similar set of procedures to teach tacting of kitchen items and prepositions (i.e., relational autoclitics) to three females ages 13–20, diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. We taught some kitchen items/prepositions as tacts (e.g., “the strainer is to the right of the box”) according to a non-overlap instructional sequence. Subsequently, we taught more combinations in an overlap instructional sequence. Each training procedure was followed by probes of untrained relations. Two participants demonstrated recombinative generalization of untrained combinations following the first non-overlap phase, while the third participant demonstrated some response generalization of untrained relations after a few additional training sequences. All three participants demonstrated generalized tacting of object components while two participants showed generalized tacting of preposition components.     

Establishing Concurrent Mands for Items and Mands for Information about Location in Children with Autism

This study replicated and extended the methodology used in Howlett et al. (Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 943–947 2011) to bring the mands “Where’s (item)?” and “I want (item)” under appropriate antecedent control in two boys diagnosed with autism. Trials were alternated in which items were present, missing, and within view (but inaccessible) and missing and out of view. To program for generalization, fifteen items, multiple trainers, and multiple settings were used during teaching. For both participants, manding generalized to novel items, instructors, settings, and situations and maintained after 2 weeks following teaching. Results of the social validity assessment indicated that school staff found the procedures highly acceptable.     

Stimulus-Stimulus Pairing of Vocalizations: A Systematic Replication

The current study replicated an enhanced stimulus-stimulus pairing (SSP) procedure used by Esch et al. (Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 42: 42–225, 2009) for increasing vocalizations in children with autism. The enhanced SSP procedure consisted of pairing target vocalizations with high-preference items, interspersed target and nontarget trials, an observing response, and the presentation of the vocalizations in “motherese” speech. Results showed substantial increases in target vocalizations above baseline levels and above nontarget vocalizations for two of three participants.     

The Effects of Contingent Caregiver Imitation of Infant Vocalizations: a Comparison of Multiple Caregivers

The present study replicated and extended the Pelaez et al. (Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 44:33–40, 2011) study, which examined the reinforcing effects of mothers’ contingent imitation of their infants’ vocalizations. Three infants aged 7–12 months who could vocalize sounds but not words participated with two caregivers for each infant (i.e., triads). During the intervention phase, the caregivers were asked to immediately imitate all vocalizations emitted by the child for a 3-min period. During the yoked control phase, the caregivers listened to an audio recording from the preceding condition and provided vocalizations non-contingently on the infants’ responses. The procedures yielded different results across participants; one infant emitted a higher frequency of vocalizations during the contingent imitation phases over the control phases, and the other two infants showed higher rates of responding during the control phases. However, all infants emitted more imitative return vocalizations during contingent reinforcement conditions compared with the yoked control condition.     

An Underdiscussed Aspect of Chomsky (1959)

Chomsky''s (1959) review of Skinner''s (1957) Verbal Behavior has been influential and attributed with a role in the cognitive revolution. However, while counter reviews from within behavior analysis have noted that Chomsky misunderstood the subject matter, certain aspects of his scholarship have been underdiscussed. This includes several instances where Chomsky misquotes Skinner or takes his quotes out of context. Similar to the findings of Sokal (1996a, 1996b), it is speculated that the problems with Chomsky were overlooked by cognitive psychologists because his general outlook was accepted. Implications for the editorial review process are discussed.

Transgressing disciplinary boundaries . . . [is] a subversive undertaking since it is likely to violate the sanctuaries of accepted ways of perceiving. Among the most fortified boundaries have been those between the natural sciences and the humanities.—Greenberg (1990, p. 1), as quoted in Sokal (1996a)Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts.—attributed to Bernhard Mannes Baruch (Montapert, 1964, p. 145)

Areas of study are sometimes profoundly affected by people outside them. For example, the linguist Noam Chomsky is familiar to many psychologists for his influence in the cognitive revolution, the major shift in the orientation of American psychology from behavioral to cognitive in the 1960s and 1970s (e.g., Auyang, 2000, p. 105; Erneling, 1997; Hunt, 1982, p. 217; Kosslyn & Rosenberg, 2001, p. 238). Some have even suggested that Chomsky''s (1959) review of B. F. Skinner''s (1957) Verbal Behavior, the latter''s theoretical account of how language can be explained in behavioral terms, was responsible for initiating the cognitive revolution (e.g., Bialystock, 1997; Harnish, 2002, p. 44).When Chomsky set out to write his review, he faced a daunting task. While apparently well read in certain areas such as political theory, there is little to indicate he had any previous exposure to psychology except for psychoanalysis (Barsky, 1997) and through linguists who have drawn upon psychology, such as Bloomfield (1933). Psychology in general in the early and mid-20th century was broad and diverse (e.g., Heidbreder, 1933; Hilgard & Bower, 1966), and so too was behavioral psychology. At that time “behaviorism” was used to refer a variety of behavior-oriented work, such as the strict methodological behaviorism of John B. Watson (e.g., Watson, 1913, 1924), the mathematical modeling with intervening variables of Clark L. Hull''s school (e.g., Hull, 1943, 1951, 1952), and the eclectic, molar, purposive behaviorism of Edward C. Tolman (e.g., Tolman, 1922, 1932, 1948), each with its own assumptions and terminologies. Skinner''s approach, radical behaviorism, differed from all of them in that he recognized the fundamental respondent-operant distinction (Skinner, 1935, 1937, 1938, p. 61ff., 1953, pp. 45–90), accepted the reality of private events, and rejected purely hypothetical mental constructs (Skinner, 1945). Verbal Behavior was very specifically based on Skinner''s approach, and any reviewer would have to understand this to do the job properly.Behavior analysts’ responses to Chomsky''s (1959) review of Verbal Behavior have not been positive (e.g., MacCorquodale, 1970; McLeish & Martin, 1975; Richelle, 1976); their counter reviews generally have noted that Chomsky fundamentally misunderstood the subject matter and emphasized major points where he differed from Skinner. The existing counter reviews, however, do not exhaust the problems with Chomsky. An especially important yet underdiscussed problem of Chomsky is the poor quality of his scholarship, which, to this author''s best knowledge, has not been previously addressed. The purpose of this paper is to address this issue and discuss its implications for future literature reviews.

Chomsky''s Review of Skinner

As noted above, Chomsky''s apparent understanding of radical behaviorism was poor, and at numerous points he makes claims not supported by the existing literature. Some parts of his review, such as citing a supporting claim that stimuli cannot be manipulated (Chomsky, 1959, p. 31, footnote 5) demonstrate severe problems with his understanding of the subject matter, and his handling of the most basic terms was so poor that Richelle (1976) said his “misunderstanding . . . would prompt most examination graders to read no further.”Many serious problems in this area have already been discussed by the above-mentioned counter reviewers; these include instances where Chomsky misattributed views to Skinner that clearly belong to others. For example, Chomsky (1959, p. 28) in describing response strength claimed: “The strength of an operant is defined by Skinner in terms of the rate of response during extinction. . . .” Skinner never claimed this, but rather defined it as the probability a response will occur under certain circumstances (Skinner, 1957, p. 22). MacCorquodale (1970) noted that rate of response during extinction was actually Hull''s definition of probability (Hull, 1943, pp. 260–262), and claiming that Skinner accepted this definition given his criticism of Hull''s work (Skinner, 1944) would be difficult to justify. Several other of Chomsky''s errors may have resulted from his failing to distinguish Skinner''s views from those of others. For example, Chomsky claimed that Skinner said “that children can learn language only through ‘meticulous care’ on the part of adults who shape their verbal repertoire through careful differential reinforcement” (Chomsky, p. 42) and that it is part of “the doctrine of Skinner and others that slow and careful shaping of verbal behavior through differential reinforcement is an absolute necessity” (op. cit., p. 42). Aside from the fact that other people''s doctrines are irrelevant here, nowhere does Skinner make this claim. Chomsky may have actually been reacting to Miller and Dollard (1941, p. 82), who in a discussion on language acquisition wrote: “The child is given meticulous training in connecting words to objects and connecting acts to words.” Skinner (1957), however, says almost nothing about language acquisition and certainly did not describe it as arising from a laborious and intentional shaping procedure. Chomsky (pp. 35, 52), perhaps supposing all responses would act like respondents, also wrongly indicated that a “strong” (operant) verbal response should, according to Skinner, necessarily be a high-pitched scream. However, as Skinner (1950, p. 196) noted,

In the sort of behavior adapted to the Pavlovian experiment (respondent behavior) there may be a progressive increase in the magnitude of response during learning. But we do not shout our responses louder and louder as we learn verbal material, nor does a rat press a lever harder and harder as conditioning proceeds. In operant behavior the energy or magnitude of response changes significantly only when some arbitrary value is differentially reinforced—when such a change is what is learned.

Not all of Chomsky''s errors involved confounding views or pure misunderstandings. There are several instances in Chomsky (1959) where Skinner is quoted out of context or the quote is incorrect such that Skinner''s views are not accurately portrayed. A few examples follow.

1. The above-mentioned false definition of response strength was again made when Chomsky (1959, p. 34) claimed that “Skinner has argued that this [rate of emission during extinction] is ‘the only datum that varies significantly and in the expected direction under conditions which are relevant to the “learning process.” The actual quote from Skinner (1950, p. 198) began with “Rate of responding appears to be the only datum which [sic] varies significantly. . . .” Extinction was not mentioned at all. Furthermore, this occurred in a discussion of learning theories, far removed from anything Chomsky discussed.
2. Chomsky (1959, p. 34) claimed that Skinner said that “the frequency of the response may be ‘primarily attributable to the frequency of occurrence of controlling variables’ . . . .” The actual sentence in Skinner (1957, p. 27) was “Nor can we be sure that frequency is not primarily attributable to the frequency of occurrence of controlling variables.” This occurred in a discussion of factors affecting frequency, during which Skinner emphasized that, contrary to the practice of “word counts” used in formal analyses of language, “it is also important to know the prevailing conditions,” that is, the circumstances under which they occur. Skinner was expressing a possibility or an uncertainty, which Chomsky failed to acknowledge.
3. Chomsky (1959, p. 34, footnote 9) quoted from Skinner (1950, p. 199) regarding allegedly using “the notion of probability in analyzing or formulating instances of even types of behavior which are not susceptible to this analysis.” Chomsky used this quote in a discussion in which he attacked Skinner''s usage of probability (and failed; see MacCorquodale, 1970). However, the passage from Skinner occurred at the end of a paragraph discussing complex activities that, as a whole, may never be repeated by the individual. In the same paragraph, Skinner (p. 199) said,

They are not simple unitary events lending themselves to prediction as such. If we are to predict marriage, success, accident, and so on, in anything more than statistical terms, we must deal with the smaller units of behavior which lead to and compose these unitary episodes. If the units appear in repeatable form, the present analysis may be applied.

Chomsky, however, attempted to apply this analysis to language behaviors, which typically involve a large number of units that may occur very frequently; thus the limitations that may apply to predicting marriage, success, accident, and so on as wholes are irrelevant to Skinner''s program. Chomsky acknowledged none of this.4. Chomsky (1959, p. 35, footnote 10), in discussing pitch, quoted Skinner as saying “Fortunately, ‘In English this presents no great difficulty’ since, for example, ‘relative pitch levels . . . are not . . . important,’” the “this” apparently referring to that pitch, among things, has linguistic functions (pp. 34–35). He further indicated (op. cit.): “No reference is made to the numerous studies of the function of relative pitch levels and other intonational features in English.” The implication is that Skinner ignored the importance of pitch and intonation in actual speech. But what Skinner (1957, p. 25) actually wrote was:

In English, this [energy level, speed of response, and even repetition entering into the construction of different forms of response] presents no great difficulty. Absolute levels of pitch and intensity are not “distinctive,” nor are relative pitch levels important. Changes in pitch, however, distinguish different types of utterance.

Skinner then discussed the functions of pitch in English. While Skinner and Chomsky may have disagreed about their exact functions, it is clear that Skinner did not contend that intonation or pitch in English were completely “unimportant” as Chomsky implied.5. Chomsky (1959, p. 52, footnote 42) quipped, “Similarly, ‘the universality of a literary work refers to the number of potential readers inclined to say the same thing’ (. . . i.e., the most ‘universal’ work is a dictionary of clichés and greetings).” However, the paragraph in Skinner (1957, pp. 274–275) this quote was taken from begins:

A reader seeks out other works of a given writer or other literature of a given type because of the reinforcement he has received. The reinforcement depends upon his own verbal behavior. A thematic correspondence between a reader and a literary work is likely to involve a matching of variables in the fields of motivation and emotion. The universality of a literary work refers to the number of potential readers inclined to say the same thing, at least in some measure. The success of a book is some indication of the number of people who possess a given kind of verbal behavior in strength.

In other words, a work has “universality” when readers would be likely to say something similar in content to the work, not specific utterances.6. Chomsky (1959, p. 53) claimed that “Skinner considers a sentence to be a set of key responses (nouns, verbs, adjectives) on a skeletal frame” and then proceeded to criticize Skinner as if this was his position. However, the actual quote was: “Others [other sentences] are nearly complete skeletal ‘frames’ upon which an exceptional response or two may be hung” (Skinner, 1957, p. 346), and this was not presented as the sole possibility. Rather, it was part of a much longer chapter (pp. 344–367) in which Skinner discussed how verbal responses are combined. Much of this involves a class of responses called autoclitics (p. 311ff.), which are verbal operants whose occurrence depends in part on the occurrence of other verbal operants; in Skinner''s hypothesis, grammar results from an interaction of autoclitics with other verbal operants. For example, when one is confronted by the appropriate stimulating conditions (seeing a hungry man) one would not only emit such responses as hungry and man, but also autoclitics related to the specificity of the situation (the) and occurrence (is) to produce a longer, structured utterance (The man is hungry; Skinner, p. 345). Not all sentences are necessarily created this way, and in the quote Chomsky cites, Skinner does indicate some may be partially or completely preformed; however, he certainly did not claim all were.     

Increasing Vocal Variability in Children with Autism Using a Lag Schedule of Reinforcement

Variability has been demonstrated to be an operant dimension of behavior (Neuringer, 2002; Page & Neuringer, 1985). Recently, lag schedules have been used to demonstrate operant variability of verbal behavior in persons with a diagnosis of autism (e.g., Lee, McComas, & Jawor, 2002). The current study evaluated the effects of a Lag 1 schedule on the vocal variability of 2 nonverbal children with a diagnosis of autism. Results showed systematic increases in variability during the Lag 1 schedule. Implications of lag schedules for speech and language training are discussed.     

An Introduction to Joint Control

Lowenkron and colleagues (Lowenkron, 1984; 1991; 1998; 2006; Lowenkron and Colvin, 1992) describe a model that explains complex behavior using only well-established behavioral principles, concepts and terms. The model, called joint control, is especially useful for understanding complex and delayed discriminations within a purely behavioral framework and with no appeal to hypothetical concepts or structures. In it the listener is an active behaver rather than a processor of information. In fact, on this account the listener becomes a speaker. Several examples of the relevance of this approach to the explanation of complex behavior are provided, including cases of stimulus selection, conditional discrimination, and generalized identity matching.     

A Behavioral Conceptualization of Aphasia

Aphasia is an acquired language impairment that affects over 1 million individuals, the majority of whom are over age 65 (Groher, 1989). This disorder has typically been conceptualized within a cognitive neuroscience framework, but a behavioral interpretation of aphasia is also possible. Skinner''s (1957) analysis of verbal behavior proposes a framework of verbal operants that can be integrated with the work of Sidman (1971) and Haughton (1980) to describe the language difficulties individuals with aphasia experience. Using this synthesis of models, we propose a new taxonomy of aphasia based on the observed deficit relations. Assessment and treatment implications are also discussed.     

Jack Michael,Behavior Analyst

Jack Michael was the quintessential behavior analyst. Despite his reputation as a theoretician and expert in verbal behavior and on Skinner’s book Verbal Behavior, Jack was actually an applied behavior analyst in the literal sense before anyone had coined the term. Prior to becoming one of Jack’s doctoral students at Western Michigan University, I was a behavior-analytic neophyte. After I graduated and began my own teaching (modeled after Jack’s behavior-analytic method of teaching) and thinking and writing about behavior analysis, I found myself talking and thinking like Jack. He had a similar behavior changing effect not only on many of his other students, but also on others who had the good fortune to know him.     

Effects of a Differential Observing Response on Intraverbal Performance of Preschool Children: A Preliminary Investigation

Axe (2008) speculated that some instances of intraverbal responding might be associated with limited or delayed acquisition because they require discrimination of multiple components of verbal stimuli. Past studies suggest that acquisition of responses under control of complex, multicomponent antecedent stimuli (e.g., conditional or compound stimulus control) can be facilitated with the introduction of a differential observing response (DOR; Dube & McIlvane, 1999; Gutowski, Geren, Stromer, & Mackay, 1995). The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effects of a DOR (i.e., repeating the question) on intraverbal responding with six neurotypical preschool children. Findings included that (a) accuracy of intraverbal performance increased when the experimenter prompted a DOR; (b) 1 of 6 participants overtly emitted the DOR for a second relation in the absence of prompts, which was correlated with increased accuracy; and (c) following mastery, response accuracy was variable for 3 participants. Based on these findings, prompted DORs may offer an effective, if temporary, aid to intraverbal instruction for neurotypical preschool children.     

Using a Lag Schedule of Reinforcement to Increase Response Variability in Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders

Lag reinforcement schedules have been shown in previous research to be an effective intervention for teaching verbal and nonverbal response variability to individuals with developmental disabilities. In more recent research, variability itself has been considered a reinforceable behavior in its own right (Susa & Schlinger, The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 18, 125–130, 2012). Lag x schedules of reinforcement can be used to teach variability by using contingencies that require responses to differ from previous responses. The present study extended Susa and Schlinger’s, The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 18, 125–130, (2012) research by using 3 social questions instead of 1 in a random rotation and included probes to test for generality. A changing-criterion design was used to evaluate the results with one 11-year-old female participant diagnosed with autism. During baseline, the participant provided little variability, with rote responses. During the Lag 1 and Lag 2 phases, appropriate variable verbal responding increased with the use of echoic prompts, visual aids, and an error correction procedure. Further, the results also showed that the participant learned to vary her responses by demonstrating the ability to emit 11 novel prompted responses and 13 spontaneous responses.In addition, the participant was able to retain the skills learned in a maintenance probe conducted 4 weeks postintervention.     

Evaluating the Emergence of Reverse Intraverbals in Children with Autism

Verbal behavior plays a fundamental role in the development of complex social and communication skills. Many children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder exhibit profound deficiencies in intraverbal repertoires and the development of social relationships. Recent studies that investigated the effects of intraverbal training on the emergence of reverse intraverbals produced mixed results (e.g., Perez-Gonzalez et al., Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 40:697–701, 2007)). In the current study, a multiple-probe design across four participants with autism was used to evaluate the effects of intraverbal training on the emergence of reverse intraverbals. Intraverbal training consisted of multiple exemplars taught concurrently, bidirectional stimulus-response teaching formats, general case analysis, reinforcement, and a constant prompt delay (CPD) procedure. Participants were trained on intraverbal targets and probes were conducted to assess emergence of untaught reverse intraverbals. Three participants demonstrated the emergence of reverse intraverbals as a result of the intraverbal training procedures. Social validity and maintenance of target responses and emergent reverse intraverbals were assessed.     

Evaluation of Verbal Behavior in Older Adults

Approximately 5% of older adults have a dementia diagnosis, and language deterioration is commonly associated with this disorder (Kempler, 2005). Several instruments have been developed to diagnose dementia and assess language capabilities of elderly adults. However, none of these instruments take a functional approach to language assessment as described by Skinner (1957). The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate a function-based assessment for language deficits of older adults. Thirty-one participants were categorized into a control group (n  =  15) and a dementia group (n  =  16) based on their score on the Dementia Rating Scale-2. Individuals with dementia performed significantly worse on the tact assessment than those without dementia. Participants from both groups performed better on measures of tacts than intraverbals or mands, even though topographically identical responses were required in these assessments. The data provide support for Skinner''s conceptualization of functionally independent verbal operants.     

The Veils of Clio: Dimensions of a Behavioral Narratology

This paper outlines a behavior-analysis approach to the field of narratology, the study of the narrative or story, with emphasis on nonfiction stories and the processes by which such stories distort the world they describe. Stories are described in terms of (a) a behavior-analysis adaptation of Todorov''s (1977) analysis of the plots of stories in terms of states of equilibrium/disequilibrium and (b) Grant''s (2005) analysis of the structure of stories in terms of establishing operations and escape contingencies. These two sets of concepts are applied to understanding how and why stories lead to distortions of the events they report.     

Jack Michael’s Motivation

Among many of Jack Michael''s contributions to the field of behavior analysis is his behavioral account of motivation. This paper focuses on the concept of motivating operation (MO) by outlining its development from Skinner''s (1938) notion of drive. Conceptually, Michael''s term helped us change our focus on how to study motivation by shifting its origins from the organism to the environment. Michael''s account also served to stimulate applied research and to better understand behavioral function in clinical practice.