Advertisement

The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

, Volume 34, Issue 1–2, pp 62–78 | Cite as

Vernacular Selection: What to Say and When to Say It

  • Paul NeumanEmail author
Article

Abstract

The language of behavior analysis is precise in the sense that it focuses attention on functional relations between behavior and the environment that are extended in time. However, to non-behavior analysts, behavior-analytic terms and explanations are difficult to understand and awkward sounding. Evidence suggests that this has had deleterious effects on the acceptance of the field of behavior analysis and its explanations of behavior. The goal of this article is to assert that verbal behavior that describes behavior is functionally related to subsequent explanatory verbal behavior. In addition, it is argued that technical language is not a requirement of precision and logical formulation. Suggestions are made regarding how behavior analysts can generate evidence to better understand explanatory preferences of individuals with various amounts of exposure to behavior analysis. In addition, methods are suggested for introducing behavior analysis to others with vernacular descriptions of behavior and its causes that do not obscure critical distinctions by introducing mental/mediational explanations.

Keywords

Behavior-analytic description Explanatory preference Presenting behavior analysis Technical language Verbal precision 

Notes

Funding

This researched received no funding.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author reports no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Austin, J. L. (1961). Philosophical papers. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, J. S. (1991). Marketing behavior analysis requires different talk. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 445–448.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1991.24-445 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barling, J., & Wainstein, T. (1979). Attitudes, labeling bias, and behavior modification in work organizations. Behavior Therapy, 10, 129–136.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(79)80016-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baum, W. M. (1973). The correlation-based law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 20, 137–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baum, W. M. (2012). Rethinking reinforcement: Allocation, induction, and contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 97, 101–124.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2012.97-101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becirevic, A., Critchfield, T. S., & Reed, D. D. (2016). On the social acceptability of behavior-analytic terms: Crowdsourced comparisons of lay and technical language. The Behavior Analyst, 39, 305–317.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-016-0067-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borkovec, T. D., & Nau, S. D. (1972). Credibility of analogue therapy rationales. Journal of Behavior Therapy & Experimental Psychology, 3, 257–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buehner, M. J. (2003). Rethinking temporal contiguity and the judgement of causality: Effects of prior knowledge, experience, and reinforcement procedure. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 865–890.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980244000675 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buehner, M. J. (2005). Contiguity and covariation in human causal inference. Learning & Behavior, 33, 230–238.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill-Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Critchfield, T. S., Doepke, K. J., Epting, L. K., Becirevic, A., Reed, D. D., Fienup, D. M., et al. (in press). Normative emotional responses to behavior analysis jargon, or, how not to use words to win friends and influence people. Behavior Analysis in Practice., 10, 97–106.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-016-0161-9
  12. Fernandez-Duque, D., Evans, J., Christian, C., & Hodges, S. D. (2015). Superfluous neuroscience information makes explanations of psychological phenomena more appealing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27, 926–944.  https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00750 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Field, D. P., & Hineline, P. N. (2008). Dispositioning and the obscured roles of time in psychological explanations. Behavior and Philosophy, 36, 5–69.Google Scholar
  14. Foxx, R. M. (1996). Translating the covenant: The behavior analyst as ambassador and translator. The Behavior Analyst, 19, 147–161.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393162 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Friman, P. C. (2006). Eschew obfuscation: A colloquial description of contingent reinforcement. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 7, 107–110.Google Scholar
  16. Hayes, S. C., Pistorello, J., & Walser, R. D. (1995). Communicating behavioral views and techniques to practicing clinicians. Journal of Behavioral Therapy & Experimental Psychiatry, 26, 107–112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(95)00012-O CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Herrnstein, R. J. (1970). On the law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 243–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Herrnstein, R. J., & Hineline, P. N. (1966). Negative reinforcement as shock-frequency reduction. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 9, 421–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hineline, P. N. (1980). The language of behavior analysis: Its community, its function, and its limitations. Behaviorism, 8, 67–86.Google Scholar
  21. Hineline, P. N. (1983). When we speak of knowing. The Behavior Analyst, 6, 183–186.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392398 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hineline, P. N. (1990). The origins of environment-based psychological theory. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 53, 305–320.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1990.53-305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hineline, P. N. (2001). Beyond the molar molecular distinction: We need multiscaled analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 75, 342–347.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2001.75-342 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hume, D. (1975). Enquiries concerning human understanding and concerning the principles of morals. Oxford, UK: Clarendon. (Originally published in 1777.)Google Scholar
  25. Jarmolowicz, D. P., Kahng, S., Ingvarsson, E. T., Goysovich, R., Heggemeyer, R., & Gregory, M. K. (2008). Effects of conversational versus technical language on treatment preferences and integrity. Intellectual and Development Disabilities, 46, 190–199.  https://doi.org/10.1352/2008.46:190-199 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaplan, P. S., & Hearst, E. (1982). Bridging temporal gaps between CSs and USs in autoshaping: Insertion of other stimuli before, during and after Cs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 8, 187–203.Google Scholar
  27. Kazdin, A. E., & Cole, P. M. (1981). Attitudes and labeling biases toward behavior modification: The effects of labels, content, and jargon. Behavior Therapy, 12, 56–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(81)80106-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kazdin, A. E., & Krouse, R. (1983). The impact of variations in treatment rationales on expectations for therapeutic change. Behavior Therapy, 14, 657–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leigland, S. (1989). A functional analysis of mentalistic terms in human observers. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 7, 5–18.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392831 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leigland, S. (1996). The functional analysis of psychological terms: In defense of a research program. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 13, 105–122.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392909 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lindsley, O. R. (1991). From technical jargon to plain English for application. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 449–458.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1991.24-449 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Matute, H., & Miller, R. R. (1998). Detecting causal relations. In O’Donohue (Ed.), Learning and behavior therapy (pp. 483–497). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  33. Mendelson, R., & Shultz, T. R. (1976). Covariation and temporal contiguity as principles of causal inference in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 22, 408–412.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(76)90104-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Michotte, A. (1963). The perception of causality. New York, NY: Basic Books. (Originally published in 1946.)Google Scholar
  35. Miles, T. R. (1994). Ordinary language: The contributions of Gilbert Ryle and John Austin to the experimental analysis of behavior. The Behavior Analyst, 17, 25–33.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392650 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moore, J. (1983). On molarism and matching. The Psychological Record, 33, 313–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  38. Read, P. (1992). Effects of signaled delay between an action and outcome on human judgement of causality. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44B, 81–100.Google Scholar
  39. Rhoades, M. M., & Kratochwill, T. R. (1992). Teacher reactions to behavioral consultation: An analysis of language and involvement. School Psychology Quarterly, 7, 47–59.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088247 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rhodes, R. E., Rodriguez, F., & Shah, P. (2014). Explaining the alluring influence of neuroscience reasoning on scientific reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1432–1440.Google Scholar
  41. Rolider, A., Axelrod, S., & Van Houton, R. (1998). Don’t speak behavior modification to me: How to clearly and effectively communicate behavioral interventions to the general public. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 20, 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173–220). New York, NY: Academic Press.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60357-3 Google Scholar
  43. Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. London, UK: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  44. Sambursky, S. (1974). Physical thought: From the presocratics to the quantum physicists. London, UK: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  45. Shultz, T. R., & Ravinsky, F. B. (1977). Similarity as a principle of causal inference. Child Development, 48, 1552–1558.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1128518 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Siegler, R. S., & Liebert, R. M. (1974). Effects of contiguity, regularity, and age on children’s causal inferences. Developmental Psychology, 10, 574–579.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036594 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Skinner, B. F. (1935). The generic nature of the concepts of stimulus and response. Journal of General Psychology, 13, 40–65.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1935.9920087 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Skinner, B. F. (1945). The operational analysis of psychological terms. Psychological Review, 52, 270–277.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062535 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  50. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Skinner, B. F. (1969). The role of the environment, notes 1.1–1.2. In B. F. Skinner, Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis (pp. 3–28). New York, NY: Appleton-century-crofts.Google Scholar
  52. Stein, R. I., & Nemeroff, C. J. (1995). Moral overtones of food: Judgments of others based on what they eat. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 480–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tomasello, M., & Farmer, M. J. (1986). Joint attention and early language. Child Development, 57, 1454–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J. R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 470–477.  https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weisberg, D. S., Taylor, J. C. V., & Hopkins, E. J. (2015). Deconstructing the seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Judgement and Decision Making, 10, 429–441.Google Scholar
  56. Wincour, S. (1976). Primer of verbal behavior: An operant view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  57. Witt, J. C., Moe, G., Gutkin, T. B., & Andrews, L. (1984). The effect of saying the same thing in different ways: The problem of language and jargon in school-based consultation. Journal of School Psychology, 22, 361–367.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4405(84)90023-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wolpe, J. (1978). Cognition and causation in human behavior and its therapy. The American Psychologist, 33, 437–446.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.33.5.437 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Woodward-Kron, R. (2008). More than just jargon: The nature and role of specialized language in learning disciplinary knowledge. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 234–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Woolfolk, R. L., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1979). Modifying the effect of the behavior modification label. Behavior Therapy, 10, 575–578.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(79)80060-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations