Advertisement

Behavior Analysis in Practice

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 97–106 | Cite as

Normative Emotional Responses to Behavior Analysis Jargon or How Not to Use Words to Win Friends and Influence People

  • Thomas S. CritchfieldEmail author
  • Karla J. Doepke
  • L. Kimberly Epting
  • Amel Becirevic
  • Derek D. Reed
  • Daniel M. Fienup
  • Jamie L. Kremsreiter
  • Cheryl L. Ecott
Research Article

Abstract

It has been suggested that non-experts regard the jargon of behavior analysis as abrasive, harsh, and unpleasant. If this is true, excessive reliance on jargon could interfere with the dissemination of effective services. To address this often discussed but rarely studied issue, we consulted a large, public domain list of English words that have been rated by members of the general public for the emotional reactions they evoke. Selected words that behavior analysts use as technical terms were compared to selected words that are commonly used to discuss general science, general clinical work, and behavioral assessment. There was a tendency for behavior analysis terms to register as more unpleasant than other kinds of professional terms and also as more unpleasant than English words generally. We suggest possible reasons for this finding, discuss its relevance to the challenge of deciding how to communicate with consumers who do not yet understand or value behavior analysis, and advocate for systematic research to guide the marketing of behavior analysis.

Keywords

Jargon Behavior analysis terminology Dissemination Motivating operations Emotion 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors. It drew instead on archival, public domain data sets. Therefore, Institutional Review Board oversight does not apply.

Informed Consent

Because the research used archival, public domain data sets, conventions of informed consent do not apply.

References

  1. Backer, T. E., Liberman, R. P., & Kuehnel, T. G. (1986). Dissemination and adoption of innovative psychosocial interventions. Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 111–118. doi: 10.1037/0022-006x.54.1.111.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91–97. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1968.1-91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey, J. S. (1991). Marketing behavior analysis requires different talk. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 445–448. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1991.24-445.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1962). Dimensions of therapist response as causal factors in therapeutic change. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 76, 1–36. doi: 10.1037/h0093918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s40614-016-0067-4.Google Scholar
  6. Berger, M. (1973). Behaviorism in twenty-five words. Social Work, 18, 106–108.Google Scholar
  7. Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1999). Affective norms for English words (ANEW): stimuli, instructions manual and affective ratings (technical report no. C-1). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, NIMH Center for Research in Psychophysiology.Google Scholar
  8. Buckley, K. W. (1982). The selling of a psychologist: John Broadus Watson and the application of behavioral techniques to advertising. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 18, 207–221. doi: 10.1002/1520-6696(198207)18:3<207::aid-jhbs2300180302>3.0.co;2-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Coleman, C. (2011). Teaching health care professionals about health literacy: a review of the literature. Nursing Outlook, 59, 70–78. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2010.12.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  11. Corrigan, J. D., Dell, D. M., Lewis, K. N., & Schmidt, L. D. (1980). Counseling as a social influence process: a review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 27, 395–441. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.27.4.395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dodds, P. S., & Danforth, C. M. (2009). Measuring the happiness of large-scale written expression: songs, blogs, and presidents. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 441–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dodds, P. S., et al. (2015). Human language reveals a universal positivity bias. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 112, 2389–2394. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1411678112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doughty, A. H., Holloway, C., Shields, M. C., & Kennedy, L. E. (2012). Marketing behavior analysis requires (really) different talk: a critique of Kohn (2005) and a(nother) call to arms. Behavior and Social Issues, 21, 115–134. doi: 10.5210/bsi.v21i0.3914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Floh, A., Koller, M., & Zauner, A. (2013). Taking a deeper look at online reviews: asymmetric effect of valence intensity on shopping behavior. Journal of Marketing Management, 29, 646–670. doi: 10.1080/0267257x.2013.776620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Foxx, R. M. (1990). Suggested common North American translations of expressions in the field of operant conditioning. The Behavior Analyst, 13, 95–96.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Foxx, R. M. (1996). Translating the covenant: the behavior analyst as ambassador and translator. The Behavior Analyst, 19, 147–161.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Freedman, D. H. (2015). Improving the public perception of behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 1–7. doi: 10.1007/s40614-015-0045-2.
  19. Garcia-Marques, T., Mackie, D. M., Claypool, H. M., & Garcia-Marques, L. (2004). Positivity can cue familiarity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 585–593. doi: 10.1177/0146167203262856.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Guerini, M., Pepe, A., & Lepri, B. (2012). Do linguistic style and readability of scientific abstracts affect their virality? Download from http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.4238.pdf.
  21. Howarth, P. (1994). Attila, King of the Huns: the man and the myth. New York: Barnes & Noble Books.Google Scholar
  22. Jarmolowicz, J. P., Kahng, A., Invarsson, E. T., Goysovich, R., Heggemeyer, R., & Gregory, M. K. (2008). Effects of conversational versus technical language on treatment preference and integrity. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 190–199. doi: 10.1352/2008.46:190-199.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lindsley, O. R. (1991). From technical jargon to plain English for application. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 449–458. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1991.24-449.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Maurice, C. (1993). Let me hear your voice: a family’s triumph over autism. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  25. Norman, S. M., Avolio, B. J., & Luthans, F. (2010). The impact of positivity and transparency on trust in leaders and their perceived effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 350–364. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 184–188. doi: 10.1177/0963721414531598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Perfetti, C. A., Bell, L. C., & Delaney, S. M. (1988). Automatic (prelexical) phonetic sound activation in silent word reading: evidence from backward masking. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 59–70. doi: 10.1016/0749-596x(88)90048-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Petty, R. E., Schumann, D. W., Richman, S. S., & Strathman, A. J. (1993). Positive mood and persuasion: different roles for affect under high- and low-elaboration conditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 5–20. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.64.1.5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Reagan, A., Tivnan, B.M. Williams, J.R., Danforth, C.M., & Dobbs, P.S. (2015). Benchmarking sentiment analysis methods for large-scale texts: a case for using continuum-scored words and word-shift graphs. Download from https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.00531.
  30. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  31. Rosenzweig, S. (1936). Some implicit common factors in diverse methods of psychotherapy. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 6, 412–415. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.1936.tb05248.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Press Press.Google Scholar
  33. Skinner, B. F. (1988). Reply to Harnad. In A. C. Catania & S. Harnad (Eds.), The selection of behavior: the operant behaviorism of B.F. Skinner: comments and consequences (pp. 468–473). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Smith, J. M. (2015). Strategies to position behavior analysis as the contemporary science of what works in behavior change. The Behavior Analyst, 1–13. doi: 10.1007/s40614-015-0044-3.
  35. Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. (2015). Affective biases in English are bi-dimensional. Cognition and Emotion, 29, 1147–1167. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2014.968098.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Warriner, A. B., Kuperman, V., & Brysbeart, M. (2013). Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 1191–1207. doi: 10.3758/s13428-012-0314-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 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. doi: 10.1016/0022-4405(84)90023-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wolf, M. 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. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1978.11-203.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas S. Critchfield
    • 1
    Email author
  • Karla J. Doepke
    • 1
  • L. Kimberly Epting
    • 2
  • Amel Becirevic
    • 3
  • Derek D. Reed
    • 3
  • Daniel M. Fienup
    • 4
  • Jamie L. Kremsreiter
    • 5
  • Cheryl L. Ecott
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyIllinois State UniversityNormalUSA
  2. 2.Elon UniversityElonUSA
  3. 3.University of KansasLawrenceUSA
  4. 4.Queens CollegeFlushingUSA
  5. 5.University of Iowa Hospitals and ClinicsIowa CityUSA
  6. 6.Better Life Behavioral Services of Central FloridaLeesburgUSA

Personalised recommendations