Journal of Conzmuniry PJychology

Volume 12. April. 1984

BEHAVIORAL COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY:

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE*
DAVID S. GLENWICK LEONARD A. JASON
Fordham University DePaul University
An overview of this special issue, and of behavioral community psychology, is
provided, beginning with a summary of terminology and history. Five dimensions on
which behavioral community interventions may be classified are then described: (a)
subject matter/target behavior, (b) behavioral procedures used, (c) experimental
design, (d) intervention level, and (e) time focus. The studies composing this special
issue serve as illustrations of these dimensions. This is followed by a discussion of
issues important in designing and implementing behavioral community projects.
Finally, challenges facing the field are noted.

This special issue of the Journal of Community Psychology is devoted to behavioral

community psychology, a field which, though relatively young, has already shown con-
siderable accomplishment and promise. Emerging as a formally defined entity in the
mid- 1970s (Jason, 1977; Nietzel, Winett, MacDonald, & Davidson, 1977; Reiss,
Piotrowski, & Bailey, 1976), the term “behavioral community psychology” has come to
refer to the marriage of the methodology of behaviorism and the strategies and concep-
tual framework of community psychology. Historically, until recently behaviorists have
tended not to be community-psychology-oriented in their conceptualization of problems
and interventions. Behavior modification made its early advances in outpatient in-
dividual treatment (e.g., for phobias and compulsions) and in institutional environments
(e.g., psychiatric hospitals, mental retardation centers). In their applied research and
treatment activities, behaviorists operated predominantely out of a traditional model,
directing their efforts toward populations with manifest dysfunctions and relying on one-
to-one or small group intervention modalities (MacDonald, Hedberg, & Campbell,
1974).
Conversely, for their part community psychologists have tended to be nonbehavioral
in their intervention techniques. While the targets of intervention may have shifted from
individuals to groups, organizations, and communities, there was typically less of a shift
in the nature of the interventions themselves. Such orientations as the psychodynamic
and client-centered, legacies of most community psychologists’ clinical backgrounds,
were often retained in designing community projects.
Given these rather separate paths of development, there was relatively little contact
between behaviorists and community psychologists during the community psychology
movement’s first decade. Only within the past eight years or so have the two initiated a
dialogue in which the potential value of each for the other has begun to be realized. At a
time when community psychology has been asking itself (a) how much of its promise of
the 1960s has been fulfilled and (b) what its status is as a discipline possessing substance
and content (Danish, 198 1; Glenwick, 1982), behaviorism provides a viable technology
for community psychology’s establishment of an empirically based foundation.
Behaviorism’s utilization of objective, reliable measures and its careful investigation of
functional relationships make it well-suited for community projects marked by the
precise formulation of goals, the specification of components of the intervention, and the
gathering of comprehensive outcome data.

*Requests for reprints should be sent to David S . Glenwick, Department of Psychology, Fordham Univer-
sity, Bronx, New York 10458.
103
 TABLE 1
Characteristics of Articles in this Special Issue

Subject Matter/
Author Target Behavior Target Population Behavior Procedures Experimental Design Level of Intervention U
P
Johnson & Geller safety/seat-belt wearing adult drivers prompts, ABA with between- community
2
tl
reinforcement group comparison YJ
Mathews & Fawcett job-finding/completion learning disabled didactic instruction, multiple-baseline individual
of employment adolescents practice, feedback across subjects
application materials
Jason several (e.g., health, several adolescent several (e.g., several (primarily organizational and
safety, energy conserva- and adult prompts, feedback, ABAB and AB community
tion)/several (e.g., populations setting modification) designs)
litter reduction, church
attendance, medicine
selection)
Preciado, Green, & education/use of English adult Mexican antecedent stimulus mu Iti-elemen t
Montesinos migrant workers modification, baseline design
contingencies
(reinforcement and
response-cost)
Luyben energy conservation/ college faculty prompts, feedback AB design with organizational
dropping and tilting between-groups
Venetian blinds comparison
Seekings, Mathews, organizational adult board members didactic instruction, multiple baseline individual/
& Fawcett management/leadership role-playing, across behaviors organizational
skills feedback, and praise
 TABLE I (Continued)

Subject Matter/
Author Target Behavior Target Population Behavior Procedures Experimental Design Level of Intervention

Kane, Iwata, & Kane health/attendance at adult community prompts, two AB designs community
hypertension screening residents reinforcement
program: follow-up
visits to physician
Stephens & aging/social older adults self-monitoring multiple regression organizational/
Norris-Baker participation in (time budgets) correlational design community
congregate housing
Jones & Haney safety/fire emergency black third graders self-instruction, between-groups group
responding self-monitoring, comparison
self-evaluation, and
self-reinforccmcnt;
modeling and
behavioral rehearsal;
reinforcement
Thurston, Dasta, & self-help skills/survival urban women didactic instruction, pre- to posttest group
Greenwood competencies (e.g., child role-playing, change for 14 groups
management, assertive- problem-solving,
ness, legal rights) practical projects,
“natural community
of reinforcement”
106 DAVID S. GLENWICK AND LEONARD A . JASON

Concurrently with community psychology’s self-examination, behaviorists, having

demonstrated their methodology’s efficacy within the relatively well-defined and
delimited locales of the practitioner’s office and the closed institution, have started to
seek out broader, more community-based problems to which to apply their perspective
and techniques. They are finding that the community psychology model can lend
heuristic direction to their attempts to address pressing social concerns, as behaviorists
increasingly ask themselves with whom and at what time points it is best to intervene. It
is this synthesis of community psychology’s analysis of social problems and behavioral
psychology’s principles and methodology that defines behavioral community psychology.
Having one parent (community psychology) that is deductive-conceptual in approach
and the other (behaviorism) that is inductive-empirical, behavioral community psy-
chology represents an offspring possessing the unique strengths of both of these perspec-
tives.’

CLASSIFICATION OF BEHAVIORAL COMMUNITY INTERVENTIONS

The ten articles in this special issue were chosen to provide a sampling of the current
state of the art. In addition, they serve as instructive illustrations of five dimensions that
are helpful in thinking about behavioral community interventions: (a) subject
matter/target behaviors, (b) behavioral procedures utilized, (c) experimental design, (d)
intervention level, and (e) time focus. We shall consider each in turn.
Subject Matter/ Target Behavior
As Table 1 indicates, the articles range widely across subject matter and target
behaviors. Such diversity is characteristic of behavioral community psychology in
general. Besides the topics included in the special issue, other areas have received con-
siderable attention, such as environmental preservation (Geller, Winett, & Everett,
1982), transportation (Everett, 1980), and criminal justice (Milan & Long, 1980).
Interestingly, mental health/mental illness, which provided the initial impetus for the
birth of community psychology in the 1960%forms a comparatively small portion of the
research being conducted today in behavioral community psychology.
The populations addressed by behavioral community research and applications are
as heterogeneous as the target behaviors. The projects in this special issue cover a broad
spectrum with respect to age, gender, developmental level, ethnic background, and
socioeconomic status. When implemented knowledgeably and sensitively, behavioral
community interventions appear appropriate for most populations in our society.

Behavioral Procedures Used

Behavioral procedures may be seen as falling under four main headings: (a) classical
conditioning, (b) operant behavior analysis (i.e., modification of antecedent and conse-
quent stimuli), (c) social learning, and (d) cognitive behavior modification/self-control.
Only a handful of studies (e.g., Poser & King, 1975) have explored the potential of
classical conditioning techniques for behavioral community psychology. However, the
other three types of procedures have been utilized extensively and are represented in the
special issue. Operant behavior analysis (e.g., prompts, feedback, reinforcement, and
response-cost) has probably been the dominant form of intervention to date, primarily in
projects aimed at the modification of settings and the creation of widespread community

‘For further background detail, see Glenwick and Jason (1980) and Martin and Osborne (1980).
 BEHAVIORAL COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY 107

change. An increasing number of studies, though, are investigating the community-

oriented application of social learning and cognitive/self-control procedures (e.g.,
modeling, behavioral rehearsal and role-playing, self-instruction, and self-regulation),
especially with respect to the development of skills and self-help competencies in target
populations. The choice of procedures for a given intervention appears to depend on
several factors, including the population’s characteristics, the project’s goals, the project
director’s theoretical predilection, and the population’s receptivity to particular ap-
proaches.
Experimental Design
Similarly varied is the repertoire of experimental designs available to the behavioral
community psychologist. The most popular are traditional between-group comparisons,
reversal designs (in which baseline and intervention phases are alternated), and multiple
baseline designs (in which an intervention is introduced sequentially across subjects,
behaviors, or settings). Among the factors influencing the selection of an experimental
design and the degree of experimental control that is desirable and obtainable in a given
setting are: (a) the subject population’s size, (b) logistical constraints (e.g., time and
resources), and (c) ethical considerations. For example, a multiple baseline design will be
more practical than a between-groups comparison design when the number of subjects is
small and/or random assignment to a no-treatment condition is not feasible. Illustrative
of ethical influences upon design selection is a project in which one is attempting to
decrease child maltreatment in a group of abusing parents. In such a situation, a reversal
design would probably be ruled out for fear of recurrence of the abusive behavior.
Intervention Level
Community psychology research and applications may also be categorized accord-
ing to the target level at which change is intended. Interventions can focus on individuals,
groups, organizations, communities, and societies, with each level encompassing all
those beneath it (Reiff, 1975). While clinical interventions are aimed mainly at in-
dividuals, most community psychology projects concentrate on producing change in
groups, organizations, and communities. Obviously, the higher the target level, the
greater the potential for influencing the functioning of the numerous individuals and sub-
groups subsumed under that level. When a behavioral community project is directed at a
few individuals or a group, it is usually for purposes of prevention (e.g., Jones and
Haney’s article) or of indirectly producing larger systemic change (e.g., Seekins,
Mathews, & Fawcett’s training of board chairpersons so that a self-help organization
could function more effectively).
Time Focus
In mounting an intervention, it is possible to intervene at three distinct time
points-the oft-quoted triad of primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention (Caplan,
1964). Behavioral community psychology has directed most of its energies toward
various stages of secondary prevention-the identification of existing social problems
and the formulation of interventions to alleviate them. Primary prevention-interven-
tions designed to prevent dysfunction and build in competencies-have been com-
paratively infrequent. In this special issue, Jones and Haney’s work on teaching
youngsters correct fire emergency responding offers a nice example of primary preven-
tion.2
*Elaboration of these dimensions of classifying behavioral community projects may be found in Jason and
Glenwick ( 1 980b).
108 DAVID S . GLENWICK AND LEONARD A. JASON

ISSUES IN MOUNTINGBEHAVIORAL
COMMUNITY PROGRAMS

Unfortunately, due to such factors as lack of space and reluctance to disclose one’s
errors of commission and omission in public, consideration of “real world” issues crucial
to successful program implementation is often omitted from empirically oriented reports
of field research and applied interventions. In this section we will highlight several such
issues and potential pitfalls meriting attention in designing and implementing a
behavioral community project.
Financial and practical considerations. When proposed interventions are expensive
to maintain and/or demanding of persons’ time, they may be rejected, even if effective,
because of cost-efficiency drawbacks. Consideration of benefits and costs, both monetary
and nonmonetary, included in the articles by Johnson and Geller and by Luyben,
becomes especially important in times of tight resource availability.
Values considerations. Ethical or values-related difficulties can arise when the
behavioral intervention strategies are not totally congruent with the values of the target
population, consultees, etc. For example, some might react negatively to the utilization
of reinforcers to promote behaviors (e.g., health care, school performance) which they
feel should occur “naturally” and “responsibly” without the use of contingencies. Any
such value differences need to be addressed explicitly early in the life of a project if rejec-
tion or failure of the intervention is to be avoided.
Ensuring implementation and evaluation integrity. Ensuring the integrity of the im-
plementation and evaluation of projects involves such factors as project personnel/con-
sultees’ understanding, involvement/commitment, task performance/competence, and
openness to innovation. Three interrelated aspects of this issue are: (a) discussing the im-
portance of implementation integrity and the desirability of program evaluation with
those groups with whom we work; (b) obtaining records of sufficiently high reliability and
validity; and (c) introducing evaluation into a group or organization in a fashion which is
integrated with, and not disruptive of, the agency’s routine. In Jason’s project utilizing
undergraduates as project designers, the students were confronted firsthand with the need
to consider these issues in their encounters with sometimes initially skeptical community
personnel.
Concerns about data reliability and validity are particularly salient in behavioral
community interventions, given their emphasis upon observable behaviors as primary
outcome measures. Thus most of the studies in this special issue (e.g., the papers by
Kane, Iwata, and Kane and by Stephens and Norris-Baker) note the extent of in-
terobserver agreement with regard to the target behaviors.
Language and terminology. Controversy exists as to whether the use of behavioral
terminology reduces the receptivity of laypersons and other professionals to behavioral
procedures (e.g., Kazdin & Cole, 1981; Woolfolk & Woolfolk, 1979). For this reason,
caution in the use of behavioral jargon is advisable (while still presenting in understand-
able language the essence of the behavioral perspective). We might note that the issue of
language is a bidirectional one, in that the behavioral community psychologist venturing
into an area such as health or energy conservation often needs to learn the basic
professional language and technology of that area.
Multiple outcome measures. While behaviorists, to their credit, have championed
an emphasis on overt behavior as a sine qua non of outcome measurement, this has
sometimes resulted in an excessively narrow definition of appropriate dependent
variables, with attitudinal measures (and other similar gauges of private behaviors) often
 BEHAVIORAL COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY 109

being excluded. This may be an unfortunate and short-sighted omission since (a) change
in cognitive variables (e.g., attitudes and beliefs) is frequently independent of change in
overt behavior and (b) it is often the impact of a project on cognitive variables that
decides the intervention’s destiny. Including such measures of private events as self-
report questionnaires (Jones and Haney) and self-report of survival skills success stories
(Thurston, Dasta, and Greenwood) can aid in gaining an understanding of a particular
project’s effectiveness (or lack of same).
Side eflects and second-order change. Related to the desirability of incorporating
multiple measures into one’s evaluation design is the need to be alert to both side effects
and second-order change (Lee’change in an organization or system’s fundamental mode
of operating). It is frequently the unforeseen or serendipitous side effects and systems
level changes that help seal a program’s fate. Seekins et al.’s study, in which they ex-
amined the impact of training not only upon the target chairpersons but also upon the en-
tire board’s participation in meetings, illustrates the importance of investigating the
possible occurrence of indirect effects, both positive and negative.
Social validity. “Social validity,” as generally defined in the behavioral literature
(e.g., Kazdin, 1977; Wolf, 1978), represents an effort to ensure that our target behaviors,
procedures, and outcomes are relevant and acceptable to the “real world” settings in
which our interventions are conducted. It entails having significant others in the com-
munity (and, at times, the target population itself) evaluate the target problem’s social
importance, our intervention technique’s acceptability, and our results’ meaningfulness.
Such measures can help locate sources and causes of concern requiring attention, as well
as assist the behavioral community psychologist in designing or modifying a project to
increase the probability of a satisfying outcome for all involved. In this special issue,
attention to social validity is exemplified by Mathews and Fawcett’s use of potential
employers to evaluate the impact of the training upon adolescents’ job application skills
and Jones and Haney’s involvement of firefighters in establishing appropriate methods of
responding to fire emergency situations. Preciado, Greene, and Montesinos and
Thurston et al., by incorporating participant satisfaction measures in their studies,
demonstrate how consumers themselves can be included in the social validation process.
While the above seven issues have been discussed as if they were discrete entities, it
is apparent that in reality they are interdependent. Additionally, though some of the
specific manifestations of these concerns may be unique to behavioral community pro-
jects, the concerns themselves are, we believe, relevant for any community psychologist
attempting to carry out a successful intervention.a
CHALLENGES FACINGBEHAVIORALCOMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY
Given its comparative youth, behavioral community psychology’s track record is an
encouraging one, with a solid foundation having been laid in less than a decade.
However, for the field to build upon this foundation, several issues and concerns warrant
attention. In this section we present some of these challenges. As above, the challenges,
though discussed separately, will be seen to be closely interrelated with one another.
The production of significant change. Much of the research in behavioral com-
munity psychology has been with small numbers of subjects and at the individual and
group levels. While worthwhile both (a) in and of itself and (b) heuristically by suggesting

SParts of this section have appeared in Yokley and Glenwick (in press), which provides a more extensive
discussion of these issues, with particular reference to behavioral community research in public health.
110 DAVID S . GLENWICK AND LEONARD A . JASON

directions for larger, more systems-oriented interventions, such research needs to be

supplemented by greater effort at the organizational, community, and societal levels.
One of the major reservations expressed with respect to behavioral community psy-
chology has been a doubt about its ability or willingness to produce change which is
meaningful and/or alters the status quo (Rappaport, 1977). To effect such change,
behavioral community psychologists may well have to relinquish some of the experimen-
tal control to which they are accustomed. When one attempts to bring about second-
order change in the community, it is at times difficult to implement as tight a design as
one might wish. Thus, a degree of flexibility with regard to experimental rigor may be
required in some cases for system-wide impact to be realized.
Control versus collaboration. A second form of control with which behavioral com-
munity psychologists must grapple is that of political/bureaucratic control. For a variety
of reasons (e.g., to obtain “cleaner” data and to see that the project is done “right”),
behavioral community psychologists often seek to maximize their input and authority in
a project. Such a style, even if successful on a short-term basis, can negatively affect a
community’s acceptance of a program in the long run. A contrasting style is one that is
collaborative in nature, with the psychologist working as a consultant to, and partner
with, groups in the community in the design and implementation of programs. The adop-
tion of such a style involves a giving up of control and a distributing of power, with an ad-
mittedly uncertain effect on project effectiveness. As Kazdin (1980, p. 469) has observed,
“the ultimate social impact of behavioral interventions will require demonstration on a
large scale, . . , (with) incorporation into a self-sufficient system of administering and
monitoring the program.” The final goal of the behavioral community psychologist in-
volved in a particular project will therefore often be to fade him-/herself out, with the
community (or some segment of it) continuing to carry it on in the same or modified
form for as long as it deems necessary. While the collaborative model does pose more of
a threat to program integrity (e.g., “careful administration of reinforcement, detailed
data evaluation. . . , control over behavior” (Kazdin, 1980, p. 469), its potential benefits
for the development of the field seem well worth the risks.
Skill-building versus resource utilization. The remediation of deficiencies by the
teaching of skills has been a focus of much of the behavioral community literature, The
body of reports in which various groups have been instructed (e.g., via modeling,
behavioral rehearsal, feedback) in the acquisition of competencies is an impressive one.
However, by emphasizing skill deficits, we often overlook populations’ existing strengths
and competencies and consequently fail to capitalize upon them, both for individual
growth and community change (Rappaport, 1977). A respect for the resources (e.g.,
cognitive, instrumental, affective, material) already possessed by populations can
radically alter the manner in which we view community groups. Rather than being
regarded primarily as “target subjects” with “target behaviors” to be modified, com-
munity populations are thus seen as active agents who can train as well as be trained, give
as well as take. Such an appreciation meshes well with the sharing of decision making in-
herent in the collaborative model mentioned above. Helping us maintain a respect for the
positive qualities possessed by diverse groups and community settings, a competency
focus opens up exciting possibilities for projects involving self-help groups, resource ex-
change and barter, community self-education (Fawcett, Fletcher, & Mathews, 1980),
and the matching of persons and environments. While professional development of skill
training and environmental modification programs will rightly continue to hold an im-
portant place, we suggest that this emphasis can be complemented with receptivity to a
resource utilization perspective.
 BEHAVIORAL COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY 111

Primary prevention. As pointed out above, most behavioral community projects fall
under the heading of secondary prevention-interventions intended to reverse either in-
cipient or longer-standing dysfunctional conditions. Despite the mounting of several
programs having a preventive thrust, the possibilities in this area have only begun to be
tapped (Jason & Glenwick, 1980a). Such populations as high-risk and disadvantaged
children, individuals about to experience potentially traumatic milestone and transitional
events, and persons undergoing planned or unplanned stressful experiences offer ex-
cellent opportunities for preventive efforts.
Maintenance and generalization. In the behavior therapy literature, the
maintenance of clinical change over time and its generalization to other settings and
behaviors, while frequently sought, is less often attained. Maintenance and generaliza-
tion present a similar challenge for behavioral community change efforts. All too seldom
have behavioral community studies included follow-up components and measures aimed
at uncovering spin-off effects on the everyday behaviors of our subject groups, the diverse
environments in which they function, and the significant others (e.g., family, work
colleagues) with whom they interact. More research investigating the existence or nonex-
istence of maintenance and generalization, as well as explicitly planning for and
programming their occurrence (Stokes & Baer, 1977), is called for. Such research
becomes especially crucial if we take seriously the importance of producing meaningful
change and placing ultimate control in the hands of community members.
Dissemination. An innovation, no matter how positive and strong its findings, will
have minimal impact if it is not disseminated to and used by others. For behavioral com-
munity psychologists, who frequently venture into nontraditional territories, the matter
of dissemination is a particularly acute one. Reliance upon behavioral and community
psychology publications and conferences as exclusive outlets, while enhancing one's
notoriety among colleagues, might result in limited real-world influence. Depending
upon the audience one wants to reach, such less conventional means of communication as
governmental hearings, the popular press and electronic media, workshops and com-
munity presentations, and nonpsychology professional journals and meetings may, in a
given case, be as or more appropriate. How to transmit, package, and market our
techniques so that they will be readily adopted and effectively implemented is itself an
empirical question (Kazdin, 1980), one which behavioral community psychology must
address if special journal issues such as this are to become not merely archival material
but guideposts for the future.

REFERENCES
CAPLAN,G. (1 964). Principles of preventive psychiatry. New York: Basic Books.
DANISH,S. J. (1981). Presidential column. Division of Community Psychology Newsletter, 15, 1-2
EVERETT, P. B. (1980). A behavioral approach to transportation systems management. In D. S. Glenwick &
L. A. Jason (Eds.), Behavioral community psychology: Progress and prospects. New York: Praeger.
FAWCETT, S. B., FLETCHER, R. K., & MATHEWS, R . M. (1980). Applications of behavioral analysis in com-
munity education. In D. S. Glenwick & L. A . Jason (Eds.), Behavioral communitypsychology: Progress
and prospects. New York: Praeger.
GELLER,E. S . , WINETT,R. A., & EVERETT,P. B. (1982). Preserving the environment: New sirategies for
behavior change. New York: Pergamon.
GLENWICK, D. S. (1982). Community psychology in the '80s: A discipline for all seasons or one whose time
has passed? Division of Community Psychology Newsletter, 15, 4-6.
GLENWICK, D. S., & JASON, L. A . (Eds.) (1980). Behavioral community psychology: Progress andprospects.
New York: Praeger.
JASON, L. A . (1977). Behavioral community psychology: Conceptualizations and applications. Journal of
Community Psychology, 5 , 303-3 12.
112 DAVID S. GLENWICK AND LEONARD A . JASON

JASON,L. A,, & GLENWICK, D. S. (1980a). Future directions: A critical look at the behavioral community
approach. In D. S. Glenwick & L. A. Jason (Eds.), Behavioral community psychology: Progress and
prospects. New York: Praeger.
JASON,L. A,, & GLENWICK, D. S. (1980b). An overview of behavioral community psychology. I n D. S.
Glenwick & L. A. Jason (Eds.), Behavioral community psychology: Progress and prospects. New York:
Praeger.
KAZDIN,A . E. (1977). Assessing the clinical or applied importance of behavior change through social valida-
tion. Behavior Modification, I , 427-452.
KAZDIN, A . E. (1980). Afterword. In D. S. Glenwick & L. A. Jason (Eds.), Behavioral community psy-
chology: Progress and prospects. New York: Praeger.
KAZDIN, A. E., & COLE,P. M. (1981). Attitudes and labeling bias toward behavior modification: The effects
of labels, content, and jargon. Behavior Therapy, 12, 56-68.
MACDONALD, K. R., HEDBERG, A. G., & CAMPBELL, L. M . (1974). A behavioral revolution in community
mental health. Community Mental Health Journal, 10, 228-235.
MARTIN,G. L., & OSBORNE, J. G. (Eds.) (1980). Helping in the community: Behavioral applications. New
York: Plenum.
MILAN,M. A., & LONG,C. K. (1980). Crime and delinquency: The last frontier? In D. S. Glenwick & L. A.
Jason (Eds.), Behavioral community psychology: Progress and prospects. New York: Praeger.
NIETZEL,M. T., WINETT,R. A., MACDONALD, M. L., & DAVIDSON, W. S. (1977). Behavioralapproaches to
community psychology. New York: Pergamon.
POSER,E., & KING,M. (1975). Strategies for the prevention of maladaptive fear responses. Canadian Jour-
nal of Behavior Science, 7, 279-294.
RAPPAPORT, J . (1977). Communitypsychology: Values, research and action. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
REIFF,R. (1975). Of cabbages and kings. American Journal of Community Psychology, 3, 187-196.
REISS,M. L., PIOTROWSKI, W. D., & BAILEY,J . S. (1976). Behavioral community pscyhology: Encouraging
low-income parents to seek dental care for their children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 387-
397.
STOKES, T.F., & BAER,D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 10, 349-367.
WOLF,M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is
finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203-214.
WOOLFOLK, A. E., & WOOLFOLK,R. L. (1979). Modifying the effect of the behavior modification label.
Behavior Therapv, 10, 575-5723,
YOKLEY, J. M., & GLENWICK, D. S. (in press). Issues in mounting behavioral programs to increase the im-
munization of preschool children. Behavioral Counseling Quarterly.