behavioral community psychology: conceptualizations and applications

Journd of CommunitV P~ycholow~ X977.5, 302-312.

BEHAVIORAL COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY: CONCEPTUALIZATIONS AND APPLICATIONS*

LEONARD A. JASON

De Paul University

Durin the past few years there have been important developments in two relatef fields, i.e., community psychology as it affects the delivery of mental health services and behavior modification aa an approach for understanding etiology and treatment of mental disorders. Although behavioral technology has been applied increasingly to community areas, there has been little com- prehensive integration of the two approaches. This failure may be due to a lack of clarity both in the definitions and assumptions of the two approaches. This

aper presents an integration of community and behavioral psychology, first gy delineating their critical concepts and then by presenting illustrations of behavioral community psychology.

In recent years, many mental health professionals have become more skeptical about medical model approaches to service delivery and have moved toward a community model characterized by (1) actively seeking out incipient disorders, (2) expanding the reach of services, and (3) greater consideration of structural-environmental influences on development. Although this community orientation has identified new substantive areas, many of these still require supporting technology if the development is to be fruitful. One thesis of the article is that behavioral principles and approaches may help to meet this void. This article seeks to define and present applications of community approaches based on behavioral methodology. First, four integral aspects of behavioral community psychology will be considered: (1) conceptual (behavioristic as contrasted to psychodynamic or others), (2) style of delivery (community rather than medical) , (3) intervention target (individual, group, organization, community, society), and (4) time dimension (primary, secondary, tertiary).

CONCEPTUAL COMPONENT Etiology, development, prognosis, and treatment of mental disorders can be

viewed from many perspectives, e.g., behavioristic, psychoanalytic, social, psyche- delic, family interactional models, and others. Whether implicitly or explicitly, community practitioners follow some conceptual mode. Our focus here is limited to a behavioral model.

Behavioral psychologists have often noted that their methodology and prac- tices rest on the base of established learning theory (Wolpe, 1973). Problems are seen to result from faulty learning, manifested as learning deficits (e.g., mute schizophrenic children), excess response repertoires (e.g., fearful phobic responses to neutral stimuli), and behavioral repertoires a t low strength (e.g., dating behaviors in shy students). Behavior therapy characteristically calls for precise descriptions of problem behaviors and their controlling factors and modifying overt target behaviors using varied behavioral techniques (e.g., systematic desensitization, assertive

*My thanks to Emory Cowen, Edwin Zolik, David Glenwick, and Sheldon Cotler for their valu- able editorial advice on an earlier version of this article. Requests for reprints should be addressed to the author, Psychology Department, DePaul University, Chicago, IL 60614.

303

304 LEONARD A. JASON

extinction, shaping responses). Behavioral clinicians also formulate treatment approaches that change either the environment or behaviors of significant others in the client’s life. Indeed, some (Kanfer & Phillips, 1970) include covert, internal processes within their purview, arguing that these are subject to the same learning processes as external behaviors.

Behaviorally oriented clinicians often provide one-to-one treatment in clinic offices, targeting their interventions to clearcut, manifest dysfunctions. Behavior analysts by contrast are a different group. They also see deviant behavior as a pro- duct of adverse environmental influences, and moreover emphasize the importance of interventions in natural environments (homes, schools, etc.), with parents, teachers, or friends as the principal treatment agents. Some behavior analysts have argued that to date theory has not been helpful to research or practice. London (1972), for example, recently urged investigators to develop systematic practice and a technology to sustain it, rather than weaving intricate theories. Consequently, behavior analysts often use ABAB and multiple baseline designs, which identify necessary conditions accounting for change and demonstrate ability to control and alter targeted behaviors at will.

Differences notwithstanding, there are still commonalities between behavior therapists and behavior analysts. Mahoney, Kazdin, and Lesswing (1974) , for example, identified two of these: (a) the reliance of all behavioral approaches on a set of experimentally rooted clinical procedures; and (b) the fact that the technol- ogies used rest on objective, measurable data.

Perhaps the most heuristic feature of the behavioral model is its potential for a more systematic and objective approach for identifying optimal person-environment fits leading to mental health. Behaviorists have achieved some progress in pre- cisely describing behavior settings and the ecological, organizational, functional, and personal characteristics of environments (Cataldo & Risley, 1974; Jason & Nelson, Note 1; Winett, Battersby & Edwards, 1975). Furthermore, there has been some consensus reached as to optimal specified behavioral strategies for particular disorders (e.g., operant techniques with schizophrenic children, systematic desensitization with phobics) . Future research should provide behavioral community psychologists with a better appreciation of the effects of specified environmental dimensions on individuals, and of the potential interactions between environmental characteristics and optimal patient-treatment combinations.

STYLE OF DELIVERY There is also a need to consider how mental health services can be delivered

(Rappaport & Chinsky, 1974). Two distinct styles that have frequently been contrasted are the medical and community mental health delivery system.

Four defining characteristics of the medical model are: (1) its passive-receptive stance, i.e., waiting in the clinic or oEce until patients arrive voluntarily or invol- untarily, 2) a late treatment focus targeted towards individuals with developed, often chronic disorders, 3) a primarily one-to-one service delivery model, and 4) an implied authoritative stance, i.e., “omniscent” healers prescribing treatments. Serious limitations of this orientation include manpower shortages (Albee, 1967), and increasing demand and need for services (Zax & Cowen, 1976). Because the ined- training, conditioned avoidance response, modeling, positive and negative practice,

BEHAVIORAL COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY 305

ical model is based on a waiting stance and one-to-one delivery mode, its professional personnel cannot catch up with demand for services. (Cowen, 1973).

These limitations have created conditions that have favored the emergence of a community paradigm, aimed at preventing or a t least decreasing the flow of cas- ualties. Community practitioners tend to look for times to intervene when individuals have relatively better potential for positive change (e.g., crises, early childhood).

Another characteristic of the community approach is to broaden the reach of service delivery. One way in which this is done is to use paraprofessionals to per- form functions usually reserved for professionals. This frees up professionals to engage in program development, conceptualization, supervision, coordination, and evaluation. Consultation is another way of extending the reach of mental health services (Altrocchi, 1972; Caplan, 1964; Kelly, 1964).

Perhaps the most distinguishing feature of the community approach is its emphasis on environment rather than individuals as an appropriate intervention focus (Moos, 1975). Community theorists seek to assess and modify environmental, organizational, and societal influences on individuals and groups.

INTERVENTION TARGET Reiff (1975) has a framework for characterizing a full range of intervention

possibilities. Interventions, for example, can focus on individuals, groups, organizations, communities, and broader social systems. When community mental health professionals intervene with individuals, they are more inclined to work with those who are most amenable to treatment (e.g., during early childhood or crises), and to extend the reach of services through use of paraprofessionals and consultation. The second target unit, focusing on groups, broadens the intervention target to include significant members in close proximity to the targeted individual, or even the entire group as a separate entity. The next level of analysis switches from individuals and groups to organizations (e.g., schools, police departments, etc.). While a particular organization might affect those individuals associated with it, community level interventions (e.g., mass transit, support systems) influence many organizations and people within a community. Societal level interventions (e.g., federal legislation, supreme court decisions) influence the functioning of individuals within many organizations or communities.

TIME Focus The time dimension represents the fourth construct to be explicitly defined. In

treating a disorder, it is possible to intervene prior to onset of the disorder in order to prevent its occurrence (primary prevention), at an early point in the development of disorders (secondary prevention), or with long-standing, well-crystallized dysfunctions (tertiary).

BEHAVIORAL COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY: APPLICATIONS The previous sections delineated competing dimensions which distinguish var-

ious conceptualizations of mental disorder and the delivery of services. Explicit articulation of models is essential in order to avoid definitional confusion. In the


subsequent sections, the conceptual component adhered to is behavioral whereas the mental health delivery mode is community. Behavioral community interventions are discussed in reference to different targets (i.e., individual, group, organization, community, society) and time points (i.e., primary, secondary, tertiary). Individual level applications

Poser (1970) has suggested preventive interventions consisting of deliberately exposing high-risk, susceptible individuals to learning experiences in order to inoc- ulate them against later stress. For example, overprotected children, about to enter nursery school, might avoid the trauma, despondency, and loneliness associated with abrupt transition from home to school if they had initially been exposed to gradually increasing amounts of separation.

Typically secondary level interventions have trained paraprofessionals in behavioral techniques to work with children or adults evidencing mild disorders. For example, Guralnick (1972) employed undergraduates to teach language skills to handicapped children, whereas other investigators used undergraduates to enhance intellectual development (Jason & Kimbrough, 1974) and to help toilet train economically disadvantaged youngsters (Jason & Carter, Note 2) evidencing develop- mental lags. Paraprofessional undergraduates have also been utilized in providing behavioral supportive companionship services t o university undergraduates in dis- tress (Wasserman, McCarthy, & Ferree, 1975). Other groups of help-agents have included housewives and high school seniors, who taught reading skills to poor readers in 7th and 8th grade (Staats, Minke, Goodwin, & Landeen, 1973), and children, aged 3-6 years, who taught their younger retarded siblings simple behavioral tasks (Cash & Evans, 1975). Secondary approaches have also employed behavioral consultation, an example being Meyers’s (1975) attempt t o strengthen a teacher’s abilities to reduce pupils’ classroom disruptions. Jason and Ferone (in press) also successfully employed a package of behavioral techniques in reducing target children’s disruptive behaviors, increasing teacher attention to desirable behaviors and reducing attention to problem behaviors.

Illustrations of behavioral community interventions a t a tertiary level include Ayllon and Azrin’s (1968) efforts to train paraprofessionals to work with patients on a token economy in a mental hospital. In Paschalis and Kimmel’s (1974) study, a daughter was trained in behavioral techniques to increase the activity of her mother, who had been depressed and bedridden for seven years.

The above interventions relied on behavioral principles, targeted toward individuals, at various time points in the etiology of their difficulties. Many of the programs took an active stance, either entering the community and providing services to those most amenable to change, or geometrically extending the reach of services through paraprofessionals and consultation. Group level applications

At the primary preventive level, Larcen, Selinger, Lochman, Chinsky, and Allen (Note 3) successfully involved an entire class of elementary school children in training sessions aimed a t enhancing problem-solving skills. This unique program, aimed a t building competencies in children, has important implications if such training succeeds in making children better problem solvers and thereby prospectively inoculating them to future stressful or traumatic situations.


There have been an increasing number of secondary level projects directed towards family units. For example, Patterson (1974) trained family members in behavioral techniques to treat children with conduct disorders. Jason (in press) also familiarized family members with behavioral principles to enhance early social and intellectual development in economically disadvantaged toddlers. Wahler and Erickson (1969) employed paraprofessionals to work with families and school personnel in order to decrease children’s problem behaviors. In Ora and Reisinger’s (Note 4) regional service delivery system, the target parents were first trained to help their handicapped preschoolers, and subsequently these parents were employed in teaching other parents.

On a tertiary level, Briscoe, Hoffman, and Bailey (1975) consulted witha group of low-income members of a community board having chronic problems in decision making. Behavioral principles were employed in teaching the group problem-solving skills. Like individual level interventions, group-centered community behavioral interventions actively seek to either intervene a t most propitious moments, or to extend the reach of services through consultation or use of paraprofessionals. Organizational level applications

Accurate assessments of environmental-structural factors are needed in order to better understand such influences on human development. Cataldo and Risley (1974) have developed a behavioral instrument to assess the environmental dimensions (i.e., stimulation, interaction, activity) of institutions. Conceivably, such an instrument could be used in altering environmental dimensions affecting many residents within the institutions. Investigations of the effect of architectural units (e.g., partitions) and behavioral settings (e.g., sleeping and instructional areas) on functioning of infant care centers (Twardosz, Cataldo, and Risley, 1974) might result in better understanding of environmental impacts on infants, and provide the technology for primary prevention.

At a secondary level, Fixsen, Wolf, and Phillips (1973) have created a half-way house setting for delinquent children, based exclusively on behavioral principles. Reppucci’s (1973) intervention was also targeted towards organizational level changes, all cottages within an institution for delinquent children adopting a token economy system. Turner (in press) utilized behavioral principles in effectively organ- izing an entire community mental health center in Huntsville, Alabama. Altering ecological-structural dimensions within institutions represents a different type of organizational intervention. Jason and Nelson (Note l ) , for example, found a striking relationship between class size and manifestation of problem behaviors (disruptive target children evidenced low levels of problem behaviors in small, teacher- supervised groups).

Tertiary level interventions have included restructuring facilities for the men- tally disabled and changing structural components of nursing homes. Atthowe’s (1974) Operation Reentry was a behavioral intervention targeted at an entire mental hospital. In this system, patients gradually progressed through a sheltered work- shop on the grounds, to a self-help ward, and then finally to semi-skilled jobs outside the hospital. McClannahan and Risley (1975) mounted a project in a nursing home where residents rarely interacted or engaged in appropriate activities. When puzzles and other equipment were placed in the setting, and their use prompted, sharp


increases in resident participation were noted. The above interventions illustrate organizational level interventions, whereby efforts are directed towards the creation of new settings or the modification of structural-environmental components of al- ready existing institutions.

Community and societal level applications There have been few planned behavioral community interventions at a com-

munity or societal level. Meyers, Craighead, and Meyers (1974) suggest a possible intervention in which behavioral principles would be disseminated to an entire community enabling them to become aware of reinforcement contingencies operating in their environment and to subsequently modify their own behaviors. Other community level interventions have been directed towards mass transit plans, energy shortages, littering problems, air pollution, and unemployment, which represent con- ceptually different types of prospective mental health hazards. Behavioral investigators have implemented pilot projects to increase bus ridership (by dispensing tokens to enable people to ride buses; Everett, Hayward, & Meyers, 1974), decrease energy consumption patterns (by awarding money bonuses for decreased use; Winett & Nietzel, 1975), reduce littering in state parks (by giving economic incentives for appropriate disposal of waste; Clark, Burgess, & Hendee, 1972) , decrease cigarette smoking in supermarkets (smoking behaviors were consequated with requests to extinguish cigarettes; Jason & Martin, Note 5), and locate jobs for the unemployed (by paying people for job leads; Jones & Azrin, 1973).

Wiest and Squier (1974) offer an example of a societal level intervention. They noted that government laws in most countries are pronatalist, proscribing abor- tions, discouraging the sale of contraceptives, and deterring adults (through higher taxes) from remaining single and childless. Singapore, however, has been a notable exception, passing disincentive legislation, consisting of higher delivery cost for consecutive children, income tax deductions only for the first three children, and top priority for subsidized housing for those with two or fewer children.

Societal level influences can produce dramatic changes in establishing or modifying organizations which affect individuals. Wide-scale interventions, implemented by Congressional legislation, have included Head Start preschools, community mental health centers, and maternal and infant care projects. The latter project pro- vided prenatal care, hospitalization for delivery, and postpartum care for 20% of the poor and near poor. Prenatal mortality rates were significantly reduced for project participants (Lesser, 1972). Decisions by Supreme Court Justices, such as the outlawing of segregated schools and racial discrimination, have also acted as potent agents of change. Behavioral community psychologists might profitably investi- gate ways of influencing sociopolitical power blocks (Babarik, 1975; Demone, 1974; Gamson, 1974) and of assessing the impact of legislative and judicial decisions on organizations and individuals.

DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY This paper’s principal undertaking was the conceptualiaation of the scope and

methodology of a behavioral community psychology. Quite possibly a synthesis of community approaches and behavioral technology has been delayed on account of the difficulty in the identification of appropriate turf, areas of application, and the


clarification of conceptual terms among practitioners of behavioral and community psychology (Glenwick & Jason, in press).

Given these problems, the first sections of this paper were devoted to defining terms and models integral to the two fields. Four areas cited as being directly related to behavioral community psychology included a conceptual theory of the etiology and treatment of mental disorders, a style of service delivery, a target of interventions, and a time dimension. In integrating the above areas, a deliberate effort was made to limit the universe of prospective dimensions pertinent to behavioral community psychology. For example, heuristic dimensions in the Transac- tional-Ecological Psychology’s cube model-types of work : assessment, intervention, and research ; work roles: practice, teaching, supervising-(Buktenica, Furman, O’Keefe, Keown, Neville, Newbrough, Nobel, Schoggen, & Smith, Note 6), were not explored in this article.

While the method of community psychology theorists has been deductive-conceptual, behaviorists have adopted an inductive-empirical approach (Maley & Harshbarger, 1974). Both approaches have much to offer to an emerging behavioral community psychology. The community revolution has identified substantive areas worthy of further research, whereas behavioral approaches have contributed a promising technology for the solution of community problems.

The above mentioned behavioral community interventions were primarily based on a pathological orientation-the amelioration of either entrenched or incipient dysfunctions or the prevention of disorders. It should be stressed that an alter- native orientation is available, one founded on positive mental health and the achievement of competencies. Mahoney (1975) supports such a view, and has recently reviewed behavioral applications aimed at encouraging creativity, unique- ness, personal choice, and positive self-validation. Wandersman, Poppen, and Ricks (1976) also contend that the behavioral approach would be considerably strength- ened from a better appreciation of humanistic goals and values. Behavioral community psychology would profit considerably from refocusing its orientation from mental disorders to mental health.

Increasingly, behavior analysts have been taking a more active stance, con- ducting interventions in the community (i.e., homes, schools), and training parents, teachers, and other paraprofessionals to implement interventions (Kazdin, 1975). Still, the overwhelming majority of such interventions have been person- or group- centered. MacDonald, Hedberg, and Campbell (1974) recently reviewed fifty ar- ticles in four major behavioral journals, and found that 98% were person-centered. Such striking findings patently point to the need for more interventions focusing upon environmental influences on development.

More information is needed concerning how changes in institutional subunits are influenced by other subunits or organizations (Reppucci, 1973). If successful interventions aimed at subunits are vitiated due to adverse organizational influences not included in the intervention, then behavioral community programs will have to direct their efforts towards modifying overall organizational functioning. Relations among agencies, institutions, and systems are also of critical importance. For in- stance, mental hospitals undergoing organizational changes will fail to reduce recid- ivism if their changes are not coupled with changes in those environments to which patients are discharged (Atthowe, 1974). Along these lines, more research needs to

3 10 LEONARD A. JASON

be directed toward investigating prospective positive and negative second and third order consequences of behavioral community interventions (Willems, 1974). Even if behavioral community projects achieve positive short-term effects, deleterious second order ramifications might invalidate the entire intervention. In addition, ex- ploration of the preventive potentials of societal level interventions on organizations, groups, and individuals remains a high priority task for behavioral community psychologists.

Finally, it is appropriate and fitting to suggest several caveats which point to limitations in the behavioral base for community psychology. While behavioral technology is often used in fostering salutary goals, it can be used unwittingly to instill maladaptive skills or to consolidate power for those engaged in maintaining a status quo adverse to members of a particular setting. Such interventions might lead to isolation, dependence, alienation, and attenuation in a psychological sense of community (Sarason, 1974). Another stark reality behavioral community psychologists need to confront concerns the nature of the pluralistic-democratic society in which interventions are mounted. Given the universe of societal problems and prospective matching interventions, political decisions determine which apparently effective interventions are to be disseminated and implemented. If behavioral community psychologists are to affect significant societal change, then they need to become more adroit at influencing, lobbying, and positively presenting their pro- tects to the public and those responsible for policy decisions.

REFERENCE NOTES 1. JASON, L. A., & NELSON, T. Relations between group size and problem behaviors in a school class-

room. Unpublished manuscript 1977. (Available from Leonard A. Jason, Psychology Depart- ment, De Paul University, Chicago, IL 60614). JASON, L. A., & CARTER, B. Nonprofessimk using behavwral techniques in toilet training. Paper presented at the Midwestern Association of Behavior Analysis, Chicago, 1976. LARCEN, S.W., SELINGER, H. V., L Q C H ~ , J. E., CHINSKY, J. M., & ALLEN, G. T. Implemen- tation and evaluation of a multilevel preventwe menial healih program zn a school system. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, 1974.

4. ORA, J. P., & REISINGER, J. J. Preschool intervention: A behavioral service delivery system. Paper resented at the annual meeting of the American Psycholcgical Association, Washington,D.C.,

Beptember, 1971. 5. JASON, L. A., & MARTIN, M. Behaera1 Community psychology: Reducing cigarette smokiw ~ T L

supemrkets. Unpublished manuscnpt 1977. (Available from Leonard A. Jason, Psychology Department, De Paul University, ChjT,ago, IL 60614).

NOBEL, F., SCHOGQEN, P., & SMITH, K. Transactional-ecological psychology program. Unpub- lished manuscript, George Peabody College, 1971.

2.

3.

6 . BUKTENICA, N.A., f iRM.4N, W., O’KEEFE, s., &OWN, M., NEVILLE, D., NEWBROUGH, J.R.,

REFERENCES ALBEE, G. W. The relation of conceptual models to manpower needs. In E. L. Cowen, E. A. Gardner,

& M. Zax (Eds.), Emergent approaches to mental health problems. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, 1967.

ALTROCCHI, J. Mental health consultation. In S. E. Golann & C. Eisdorfer (Eds.), Handbook of community menial health. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972.

AYLLON, T., & AZRIN, N. H. The token ewnomy-motivational systems for therapy and rehabilitation. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968.

ATTHOWE, J. M. Behavior innovation and persistence. In C. M. Franks & G. T. Wilson (Eds.), Annual review of behavior therapy. New York: Brunner/Maeel, 1974.

BABARIK, P. Field-force intervention strategies changing the educational status quo in a community. A n k c a n Journal of Community Psychology, 1975, 3, 47-57.

BRIGCON, It. V., HOFFMAN, D. B., & BAILEY, J. S. Behavioral community psychology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1975, 8, 157-168.

UEHAVIOftAL COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY 311

GAPLAN, G. Prk~c ipbs of preventive psychiatry. New York: Basic Books, 1964. CASH, W. M., & EVANS, I. M. Training pre-school children to modify their retarded siblings’ behavior.

Journal of Behavior Therapy and Ezperimental Psychiatry, 1975,6, 13-16. CATALDO, M F , & RISLEY, T. R. Evaluation of living environments: The manifest description of

ward activities. In P. 0. Davidson, F. W. Clark, & L. A. Hamerlynck (Eds.), Evaluation of behavioral programs. Champaign, IL: Research Prw, 1974.

CLARK, R. N., BURGESS, R. L., & HENDEE, J. C. The development of anti-litter behavior in a forest campground. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1972, 6, 1-5.

COWEN, E. L. Social and community interventions. Annual Review of Psychology, 1973, 94, 423-472. DEMONE, H. W. Influencing policy: Some roles people play. In D. Harshbarger & R. F. Maley (Eds.),

Behavior analysis and systems analysis: An integrative approach to mental health problems. Kala- mazoo, MI: Behaviordelia, 1974.

EVERETT, P. B., HAYWARD, S. C., & MEYERS, A. W. The effects of a token reinforcement procedure in bus ridership. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1974, Y. 1-9.

FIXSEN, D. L., WOLF, M. M., & PHILLIPS, E. L. Achievement place: A teaching-family model of community-based group homes for youth in trouble. In L. A. Hamerlynck, L. C. Handy, & E. J. Mash (Eds.), Behavior change: Methodology, concepts and practice. Champaign, IL: Research P r w , 1973.

GAMSON, W. A. The strategy of social protest. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey, 1974. GLENWICK, D. S., & JASON, L. A. (Eds.), Behavioral community psychology: Progress and prospects.

GURALNICK, M. J. A language development program for severely handicapped children. Exceptional

JASON, L. A. A behavioral approach in enhancing disadvantaged children’s intellectual development.

JASON, L. A., & FERONB, L. Behavioral versus process consultation interventions in school settings.

JASON, L. A., & KIMBROUQH, C. A preventive educational program for young economically disad-

JONES, R. J., & AZRIN, N. H. An experimental a plication of a social reinforcement approach to the

KANFER, F. H., & PHILLIPS, J. S. Learning foundations of behavior therapy. New York: Wiey, 1970. KAZDIN, A. E. Characteristics and trends in applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior

KELLY, J. G. The mental health agent in the urban community. In Urban America and the plannang

LESSER, A. J. Progress in maternal and child health. Children Today, 1972, 1, 7-12. LONDON, P. The end of ideology in behavior modification. American Psycholagist, 1972, SY, 913-920. MACDONALD, K. R., HEDBERQ, A. G., & CAMPBELL, L. M. A behavioral revolution in community

mental health. Community Mental Health Journal, 1974, 10, 228-235. MAHONEY, M. J. The sensitive scientist in empirical humanism. American Psychologist, 1975, 30,

864-867. MAHONEY M. J., KAZDIN, A. E., & LESSWING, N. J. Behavior modification: Delusion or deliverance?

In C.’M. Franks & G. T. Wilson (Eds.), Annual review of behavior therapy, theory and practice. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1974.

MALEY, R. F., & HARSHBARGER, D. The integration of behavior analysis and systems analysis: A look at the future? In D. Harshbarger & R. F. Maley (Eds.), Behavior analysis and sys t em analysis: An integrative approach to mental health programs. Kalamaeoo, MI : Behaviordelia, 1974.

MCCLANNAHAN, L. E., & RISLEY, T. R. Design of living environments for nursing-home residents: In- creasing participation in recreation activities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1975, 8,

MEYERS, J. Consultee-centered consultation with a teacher as a technique in behavior management.

MEYERS, A. W., CRAIGHEAD, W. E., & MEYERS, H. H. A behavioral-preventive approach to com-

Moos, R. H. Evaluating correctional and community settings. New York: Wiley, 1975. PASCHALIS, A. Ph., & KIMMEL, H. D. The high school student as a change agent. American Journal

PATTERSON, G. R. Interventions for boys with conduct problems: Multiple settings, treatments, and

POSER, E. G. Toward a theory of behavinral prophylaxis. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experi-

Kalamazoo, MI: Behaviordelia, in press.

Children, 1972, 39, 4549.

American Journal of Community Psychology, in press.

American Journal of Community Psychology, in press.

vantaged children. Journal of Community Psychology, 1974, 9, 134-139.

problem of job-finding. Journal of Applied fjehavior Analysis, 1973, 6, 345-353.

Analysis, 1975, 8, 332.

of mental health seroices. New York: Group for Advancement of Psychiatry, 1964.

261-268.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 1975,3, 111-121.

munity mental healt,h. American Journal of Community Psychology, 1974,2,275-285.

of Community Psychology, 1974, 9, 351-356.

criteria. Journal of Cmul t ing and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 42, 471-481.

menial Psychiatry, 1970, 1, 3945.

312 LEONAHD A. JASON

RAPPAPORT, J., & CHINSKY, J. M. Models of service from a historical and conceptual perspective.

REIFF, R. Of cabbages and kings. American Journal of Community Psychology, 1975, 5, 187-196. REPPUCCI, N. D. Social psychology of institutional change: General principles for intervention.

SARASON, S. B. The psychological sense of community. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass, 1974. STAATS, A. W., MINKE, K. A., GOODWIN, W., & LANDEEN, J. Cognitive behavior modi6cation:"Moti-

vated learning" reading treatment with subprofessional therapy-technicians. In B. A. Ashem & E. G. Poser (Eds.), Adaptive learning: Behavior modification with children. New York: Perga- mon Press, 1973.

TURNER, A. J. Community mental health center programs. In D. S. Glenwick & L. A. Jason (Eds.), Behavioral community psychology: Progress and prospects. Kalamazoo, Mich. : Behaviordelia. In press.

TWARDOSZ, S., CATALDO, M. F., & RJSLEY, T. R. Open environment design for infant and toddler day care. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1974, 7, 529-546.

WAHLER, R. G. & ERICKSON, M. Child behavior therapy: A community programme in Appalachia. Behavwur keseurch and Therapy, 1969, 7, 71-78.

WANDERGMAN, A., POPPEN, P., & RICKS, D. (Eds.), Humanism and behaviorism: Dialogue and growth. New York: Pergamon Press, 1976.

WASSERMAN, C. W., MCCARTHY, B. W., & FERREE, E. H. Student paraprofessionals as behavior change agents. Professwnal Psychology, 1975, 6, 217-223.

WIEST, W. M., & SQUIER, L. H. Incentives and reinforcement: A behavioral approach to fertility. Journal of Social Issues, 1974, 50, 235-264.

WILLEMS, E. P. Behavioral technology and behavioral ecology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1974, 7, 151-165.

WINETT, R. A., BATTERSBY, C. D., & EDWARDS, S. M. The effects of architectural change, indjvid- ualized instruction, and group contingencies on the academic performance and social behavior of sixth graders. Journal of School Psychology, 1975, IS, 28-40.

WINETT, R. A., C% NIETZEL, M. T. Behavioral ecology: Contingency management of consumer energy use. American Journal of Community Psychology, 1975,3, 123-133.

WOLPE, J. The practice of behavior therapy. New York: Pergamon Press, 1973. Zax, M., & COWEN, E. L. Abnormal psychology: Changihg conceptions. (2nd ed.). New York: Holt,

Professional Psychology, 1974, 6, 42-50.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 1973,1, 330-342.

Rinehart & Winston, 1976.

behavioral community psychology: conceptualizations and applications

Documents