Article

Evidence-based Kernels: Fundamental Units of Behavioral Influence

PAXIS Institute, P.O. 31205, Tucson, AZ 85751, USA.
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review (Impact Factor: 4.75). 10/2008; 11(3):75-113. DOI: 10.1007/s10567-008-0036-x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This paper describes evidence-based kernels, fundamental units of behavioral influence that appear to underlie effective prevention and treatment for children, adults, and families. A kernel is a behavior-influence procedure shown through experimental analysis to affect a specific behavior and that is indivisible in the sense that removing any of its components would render it inert. Existing evidence shows that a variety of kernels can influence behavior in context, and some evidence suggests that frequent use or sufficient use of some kernels may produce longer lasting behavioral shifts. The analysis of kernels could contribute to an empirically based theory of behavioral influence, augment existing prevention or treatment efforts, facilitate the dissemination of effective prevention and treatment practices, clarify the active ingredients in existing interventions, and contribute to efficiently developing interventions that are more effective. Kernels involve one or more of the following mechanisms of behavior influence: reinforcement, altering antecedents, changing verbal relational responding, or changing physiological states directly. The paper describes 52 of these kernels, and details practical, theoretical, and research implications, including calling for a national database of kernels that influence human behavior.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Dennis D Embry, Jul 05, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
281 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Youth substance use (SU) is prevalent and costly, affecting mental and physical health. American Academy of Pediatrics and Affordable Care Act call for SU screening and prevention. The Youth Risk Index(©) (YRI) was tested as a screening tool for having initiated and propensity to initiate SU before high school (which forecasts SU disorder). YRI was hypothesized to have good to excellent psychometrics, feasibility and stakeholder acceptability for use during well-child check-ups. A high-risk longitudinal design with two cross-sectional replication samples, ages 9-13 was used. Analyses included receiver operating characteristics and regression analyses. A one-year longitudinal sample (N=640) was used for YRI derivation. Replication samples were a cross-sectional sample (N=345) and well-child check-up patients (N=105) for testing feasibility, validity and acceptability as a screening tool. YRI has excellent test-retest reliability and good sensitivity and specificity for concurrent and one-year-later SU (odds ratios=7.44, CI=4.3-13.0) and conduct problems (odds ratios=7.33, CI=3.9-13.7). Results were replicated in both cross-sectional samples. Well-child patients, parents and pediatric staff rated YRI screening as important, acceptable, and a needed service. Identifying at-risk youth prior to age 13 could reap years of opportunity to intervene before onset of SU disorder. Most results pertained to YRI's association with concurrent or recent past risky behaviors; further replication ought to specify its predictive validity, especially adolescent-onset risky behaviors. YRI well identifies youth at risk for SU and conduct problems prior to high school, is feasible and valid for screening during well-child check-ups, and is acceptable to stakeholders. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Drug and Alcohol Dependence 03/2015; 150. DOI:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.02.013 · 3.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Humans possess great capacity for behavioral and cultural change, but our ability to manage change is still limited. This article has two major objectives: first, to sketch a basic science of intentional change centered on evolution; second, to provide examples of intentional behavioral and cultural change from the applied behavioral sciences, which are largely unknown to the basic sciences community. All species have evolved mechanisms of phenotypic plasticity that enable them to respond adaptively to their environments. Some mechanisms of phenotypic plasticity count as evolutionary processes in their own right. The human capacity for symbolic thought provides an inheritance system having the same kind of combinatorial diversity as does genetic recombination and antibody formation. Taking these propositions seriously allows an integration of major traditions within the basic behavioral sciences, such as behaviorism, social constructivism, social psychology, cognitive psychology, and evolutionary psychology, which are often isolated and even conceptualized as opposed to one another. The applied behavioral sciences include well-validated examples of successfully managing behavioral and cultural change at scales ranging from individuals to small groups to large populations. However, these examples are largely unknown beyond their disciplinary boundaries, for lack of a unifying theoretical framework. Viewed from an evolutionary perspective, they are examples of managing evolved mechanisms of phenotypic plasticity, including open-ended processes of variation and selection. Once the many branches of the basic and applied behavioral sciences become conceptually unified, we are closer to a science of intentional change than one might think.
    Behavioral and Brain Sciences 08/2014; 37(5):395. DOI:10.1017/S0140525X13001593 · 14.96 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We thank the commentators for an extraordinarily diverse and constructive set of comments. Nearly all applaud our goal of sketching a unified science of change, even while raising substantive points that we look forward to addressing in our reply, which we group into the following categories: (1) What counts as evolutionary; (2) Ethical considerations; (3) Complexity; (4) Symbotypes, culture, and the future; (5) What intentional cultural change might look like; (6) An evolving science of cultural change; and (7) Who decides? We thank the commentators for an extraordinarily diverse and constructive set of comments. Nearly all applaud our goal of sketching a unified science of change, even while raising substantive points that we look forward to addressing in our reply.
    Behavioral and Brain Sciences 08/2014; 37(04):438-460. DOI:10.1017/S0140525X14000016 · 14.96 Impact Factor