Vernacular Selection: What to Say and When to Say It
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.
KeywordsBehavior-analytic description Explanatory preference Presenting behavior analysis Technical language Verbal precision
This researched received no funding.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The author reports no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
- Austin, J. L. (1961). Philosophical papers. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill-Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Friman, P. C. (2006). Eschew obfuscation: A colloquial description of contingent reinforcement. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 7, 107–110.Google Scholar
- Hineline, P. N. (1980). The language of behavior analysis: Its community, its function, and its limitations. Behaviorism, 8, 67–86.Google Scholar
- Hume, D. (1975). Enquiries concerning human understanding and concerning the principles of morals. Oxford, UK: Clarendon. (Originally published in 1777.)Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Michotte, A. (1963). The perception of causality. New York, NY: Basic Books. (Originally published in 1946.)Google Scholar
- Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. London, UK: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
- Sambursky, S. (1974). Physical thought: From the presocratics to the quantum physicists. London, UK: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
- Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Wincour, S. (1976). Primer of verbal behavior: An operant view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar