Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34632284›Full record

ArticlePerspectives on behavior science2021

Relations between Description and Experimentation in the Metacontingency Enterprise: An Interbehavioral Analysis.

Will Fleming, Linda J Hayes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perspectives on behavior science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Will FlemingDepartment of Psychology, University of Nevada, Reno, Mail Stop 296, 1664 North Virginia Street, Reno, NV 89557 USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4077-0512
Linda J HayesDepartment of Psychology, University of Nevada, Reno, Mail Stop 296, 1664 North Virginia Street, Reno, NV 89557 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite extensive theoretical development, there is a lack of consensus in the metacontingency enterprise on the extent to which current metacontingency constructs describe experimental happenings. The purpose of this article is to provide an interbehavioral analysis of the metacontingency enterprise that examines relations between description and experimentation in order to facilitate research on cultural selection occurring through metacontingencies. In particular, this article considers how stimulus functions of descriptions of metacontingency constructs participate in metacontingency experiments in terms of specificity, types of analysis, levels of analysis, and procedures. The extent to which experimental findings are able to be described in terms of metacontingency constructs is assessed. Prominent events and relations demonstrated by metacontingency experiments are summarized and discussed, as well as inconsistencies between relations described and relations constructed based on events observed. Recommendations for experimental and descriptive adjustments are offered. Although this analysis may or may not have any bearing on the metacontingency enterprise, it may serve as a template for conducting interbehavioral analyses of activities in other enterprises, if not more analyses of the metacontingency enterprise.

Indexed as

descriptionexperimentationinterbehaviorismmetacontingency

Identifiers

PMID34632284
PMCPMC8476708

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.