ArticlePerspectives on behavior science2020
On Power and Freedom: Extending the Definition of Coercion.
Article in Perspectives on behavior science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Upholding Anti-ableism in Applied Behavior Analysis: A Strengths-Based Approach to Goal Writing and Direct Service.Behavior analysis in practice · 2026Review
- Lessons from COVID-19 patient visitation restrictions: six considerations to help develop ethical patient visitor policies.Monash bioethics review · 2025Article
- Promoting appetitive learning of consensual, empowered vulnerability: a contextual behavioral conceptualization of intimacy.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Review
- A Sociobehavioral Model of Racism against the Black Community and Avenues for Anti-Racism Research.Behavior analysis in practice · 2022Article
- Improving Juvenile Justice Settings by Decreasing Coercion: One Lab's Perspectives from Behind the Fence.Perspectives on behavior science · 2022Article
- Creating Inclusive and Equitable Cultural Practices by Linking Leadership to Systemic Change.Behavior analysis in practice · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Defining coercion has been a topic of interest to behavior analysts from time to time. Given the more and more subtle influence strategies that technology has enabled, it is time to revisit these definitions. This article examines the definitions of power, freedom, and coercion in behavior analysis, comparing them to philosophical views of power, freedom, and coercion. Two extensions to the definition of coercion are suggested. First, definitions could include as coercive the removal of resources needed to generate the responses required to obtain reinforcement, or in some cases, the neglect to provide these resources. Second, choice architecture systems that are not transparent to the individuals being influenced and for which their consent has not been provided could be considered to be coercive. Implications of these extensions are discussed, including the need to examine behavior management methods for interactions considered to be coercive under the new definitions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.