Podcast Summary: ABA Inside Track – Episode 339 – Public Posting (March 25, 2026)

Episode Overview

Theme:
This episode of ABA Inside Track delves into the practice of public posting as a performance management and behavior analytic intervention, focusing on its use in both organizational and applied settings. The hosts examine research findings past and present, discuss the nuances of implementation, the pros and cons, and share personal reflections on the social validity (acceptability, likeability, potential pitfalls) of public posting as a tool for behavior change—whether in workplaces, schools, or health-related programs.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Defining Public Posting and Its History

• What is public posting?
  Public posting refers to openly displaying behavioral performance data (as graphs, charts, written lists, etc.) in a public or group space—often as part of a feedback or performance package.
• Context in research:
  Historically part of broader “performance feedback” interventions, public posting has origins in workplace/organizational behavior management (OBM) and has been used in diverse settings: factories, schools, human service agencies, gyms, and sports.
• Personal connection:
  Jackie shares her motivation for the episode: seeing public posting at her gym and questioning its effectiveness and impact (02:13-02:57).

2. Review of Classic Research (Nordstrom et al., 1991)

• Scope of review:
  Spanned 1967–1987, evaluating public posting as part of performance feedback packages in various settings.
• Key findings:
  • Individual public posting often increases targeted staff behavior (e.g., sessions run, jobs completed, praise given).
  • Group posting finds mixed results; highly dependent on context (e.g., more effective for teachers giving praise, less so in factories).
  • Combination with reinforcement/praise is typically more effective.
  • Unintended effects: Need to ensure people understand the posted data; sometimes causes confusion or anxiety.
  • Low cost, but just posting alone doesn’t always guarantee behavior change.
• Notable Quote:
  "If you have the posting, you will probably see a change, even if it’s a group posting, it may not be as stable unless you also have some form of reinforcement paired with the public posting." – Rob (16:47)
• Potential drawbacks:
  Possible negative impacts (e.g., shaming, avoidance, confusion) if not carefully managed.

Important segment: Review of literature and historical context (08:22–17:00)

3. Modern Applications & Research Studies

A. Physical Activity in Children (Miller et al., 2023)

Purpose: Can public posting, self-monitoring, goal setting, and rewards increase kids' daily steps?

• Design: ABA C D A D ("dad design"); pedometers + various intervention phases.
• Findings:
  • Public posting & self-monitoring: Transitional increase in steps.
  • Goal setting: Some further improvement.
  • Adding rewards: Most dramatic improvement.
  • Individual differences: Most kids responded well; some didn’t (possible automatic reinforcement, lack of motivation, or baseline issues).
• Quote:
  "Adding in some, you know, hard cold cash really made the biggest difference in the step counts." – Diana (34:25)
• Caveat: No long-term maintenance tested.

Important segment: Discussion of study design and results (24:44–37:25)

B. Competitive Youth Cyclists (Avezo & Nave, 2024)

Purpose: Does public posting plus self-monitoring improve adherence to training plans among elite youth cyclists?

• Design: ABAB design with 3 elite youth cyclists (ages 14–16); public posting done via WhatsApp group for team.
• Findings:
  • Marked improvement in adherence and accuracy with public posting.
  • Self-monitoring alone was high (91%); public posting appeared to enhance attention and coach interaction, serving as additional reinforcement.
  • Technology (lap key, data tracking) was only used consistently during intervention phases, suggesting public posting improved fidelity.
• Quote:
  "They posited that... public posting may have increased the attention from the coach and given a further reinforcer for actually doing what you’re supposed to be doing." – Jackie (46:58)

Important segment: Study breakdown (37:33–47:17)

C. Direct Support Professional Data Collection (Perrin et al., 2016)

Purpose: Can group public posting and goal setting improve data collection among residential staff in a human service agency?

• Design: Multiple-baseline, goal setting, group public posting (teams picked names, posted team data, set weekly goals).
• Findings:
  • Immediate, significant improvement in data collection for both sleep and skill acquisition programs after intervention.
  • Interdependent group contingency: Average group performance masked poor individual performance for some staff (the “coasters”).
  • Maintenance: Gains largely maintained when posting/goal-setting faded, but some individuals’ performance regressed.
• Quote:
  "Some of these shirkers were just kind of coasting on everyone else’s great work... A couple people just did exceptionally well to mask how poorly everyone else was doing." – Rob (53:15)
• Limitation: Didn’t measure data accuracy, only completion; unclear if goals were necessary, often set to unattainable (100%).

Important segment: Explanation of intervention and findings (47:35–55:06)

4. Dissemination Station: Social Validity, Ethics, and Unintended Effects

• Host reflections:
  • Jackie & Diana: Express concern about negative social validity—many people dislike or feel anxious about public posting, especially when it resembles shaming or competitiveness.
  • Falsification risk: Data can be faked when public posting brings pressure (e.g., “...people were faking whether they did them.” – Jackie, 57:24).
  • Countercontrol: Risk of avoidance or refusal to participate, or even outright quitting, if public posting is aversive (e.g., “If you’re going to make me play your game, forget it. I quit.” – Diana, 57:05).
  • Ethical caution: Must ensure public posting is not used to shame, embarrass, or create counterproductive competition; should consider whether it can be justified ethically for a given token situation or population.
• Best practices:
  • Use group rather than individual posting when possible to minimize singling people out.
  • Pair with reinforcement/social praise, not punitive measures.
  • Make goals meaningful but attainable.
  • Regularly assess staff/social validity, not just effectiveness.
• Quote:
  "You have to be careful in its implementation... how it's presented. If you're like, 'Hey, team, let's make this an improvement,'... I would respond much better to that..." — Diana (57:50–58:10)

Important segment: Social validity and ethical concerns (56:14–59:19)

Notable Quotes (with Timestamps)

• “If you have the posting, you will probably see a change, even if it’s a group posting, it may not be as stable unless you also have some form of reinforcement paired with the public posting.” – Rob (16:47)
• “Adding in some, you know, hard cold cash really made the biggest difference in the step counts.” – Diana (34:25)
• "They posited that... public posting may have increased the attention from the coach and given a further reinforcer for actually doing what you’re supposed to be doing." – Jackie (46:58)
• “Some of these shirkers were just kind of coasting on everyone else’s great work... A couple people just did exceptionally well to mask how poorly everyone else was doing.” – Rob (53:15)
• “If you’re going to make me play your game, forget it. I quit.” – Diana (57:05)
• "You have to be careful in its implementation... how it's presented. If you're like, 'Hey, team, let's make this an improvement,'... I would respond much better to that..." – Diana (57:50–58:10)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Episode Introduction and Personal Connections (00:13–04:20)
• Review of Classic Research (Nordstrom et al., 1991) (08:22–17:00)
• Modern Studies – Children’s Physical Activity (24:44–37:25)
• Modern Studies – Youth Cyclists (37:33–47:17)
• Modern Studies – Residential Care Staff (47:35–55:06)
• Dissemination Station – Social Validity & Pitfalls (56:14–59:19)

Tone & Language

Conversational, candid, at times humorous, with a blend of personal anecdotes, critical analysis, and references to research methodology and ethics within behavior analysis.

Final Takeaways

Summary:
Public posting, when combined with reinforcement or praise, can be a low-cost, sometimes highly effective method for increasing desired behaviors in workplaces and educational/health contexts. However, its success is context-dependent, and without attention to social validity, individual differences, and ethical implementation, it can backfire—producing avoidance, countercontrol, or data falsification.

Recommendation:
Use with care; always pair with positive reinforcement, assess social validity, and avoid punitive or shaming approaches. Further research needed on long-term effects, individual variability, and ethical dimensions.

Related Episodes & Further Listening

• Episode 41 – Sports and Fitness (Dr. Mallory Quinn)
• Episode 46 – Behavioral Fitness (Dr. Nick Green)
• Episode 97 – Staff Feedback (Dr. Amy Henley)
• Episode 115 – Self Monitoring
• Episode 132 – Component Analysis
• Episode 184 – Receiving Feedback (Drs. Sellers & Walker)
• Episode 215 – PDCHS and Supervision

Fun Snack Pairing

• Late night potato chips (a nod to the public posting study about reducing snack theft)!

For practitioners and researchers: Consider public posting as a tool, not a panacea. Always weigh the context, your team’s preferences, and the ethical implications before you post that next chart!