On the Social Acceptability of Behavior-Analytic Terms: Crowdsourced Comparisons of Lay and Technical Language
- 655 Downloads
Behavior analysis has a marketing problem. Although behavior analysts have speculated about the problems regarding our technical behavior-analytic terminology and how our terminology has hindered the dissemination of behavior analysis to outsiders, few have investigated the social acceptability of the terminology. The present paper reports the general public’s reactions to technical behavioral jargon versus non-technical substitute terms that refer to applied behavior-analytic techniques. Two-hundred participants, all non-behavior analysts, were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk and completed a survey on the social acceptability of behavioral jargon and non-technical terms. Specifically, participants rated the acceptability of how the six pairs of terms (technical and non-technical) sounded if the treatments were to be implemented for each of 10 potential populations of clients that behavior analysts typically work with. The results show that, overall, members of the general public found non-technical substitute terms more acceptable than technical behavior-analytic terms. The finding suggests that specialized vocabulary of behavior analysis may create hurdles to the acceptability of applied behavior-analytic services. The implication of these findings suggest the importance of a systematic investigation of listener behavior with respect to behavior analysis terms.
KeywordsAmazon mechanical turk Behavior analysis Dissemination Jargon Terminology Public perception Social acceptability
We thank Gideon Naudé and Rachel Jackson for valuable feedback on drafts of the manuscript and Ed Morris for the many insightful conversations about the importance of using language for its effect on the specific audience. We also acknowledge Patrick Friman for inspiring us to examine our own levels of jargon.
All reviews and editorial decisions for this manuscript were handled independently by Guest Associate Editor Philip N. Hineline.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
The authors used no grant funding in this study.
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.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Berger, M. (1973). Behaviorism in twenty-five words. Social Work, 18, 106–108.Google Scholar
- Bickel, W. K., Wilson, A. G., Franck, C. T., Mueller, E. T., Jarmolowicz, D. P., Koffarnus, M. N., et al. (2014). Using crowdsourcing to compare temporal, social temporal, and probability discounting among obese and non-obese individuals. Appetite, 75, 82–89. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2013.12.018.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: a synthesis of the literature. Tampa: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231).Google Scholar
- Freedman, D. H. (2015). Improving the public perception of behavior analysis. Behavior Analyst, 1-7. doi: 10.1007/s40614-015-0045-2
- Green, G. (1996). Evaluating claims about treatments for autism. In C. Maurice, G. Green, & S. Luce (Eds.), Behavioral intervention for young children with autism: a manual for parents and professionals (pp. 15–28). Austin: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
- Hearst, E. (1967). The behavior of Skinnerians. Contemporary Psychology, 12, 402–404.Google Scholar
- Hineline, P. N. (1990). Priorities and strategies for this new decade. Presidential address at the meeting of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Nashville, TN.Google Scholar
- Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: a review of recent theory and research. In B. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 19 (pp. 318–351). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: the trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise, and other bribes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
- Maurice, C. (1993). Let me hear your voice: a family’s triumph over autism. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
- Moser, C. A., & Kalton, G. (1971). Survey methods in social investigation (2nd ed.). London: Heinemann Educational.Google Scholar
- Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
- Roma, P. G., Hursh, S. R., & Hudja, S. (2016). Hypothetical purchase task questionnaires for behavioral economic assessments of value and motivation. Managerial and Decision Economics, 37, 306–323. doi: 10.1002/mde.2718.
- Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, relativism, and truth: philosophical papers (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Skinner, B. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Bantam Vintage.Google Scholar
- Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
- Smith, J. M. (2015). Strategies to position behavior analysis as the contemporary science of what works in behavior change. Behavior Analyst, 1-13. doi: 10.1007/s40614-015-0044-3
- Villardaga, R., Hayes, S. C., Levin, M. E., & Muto, T. (2009). Creating a strategy for progress: a contextual behavior science approach. Behavior Analyst, 32, 105–133.Google Scholar