Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On the Social Acceptability of Behavior-Analytic Terms: Crowdsourced Comparisons of Lay and Technical Language

The Behavior Analyst volume 39, pages 305–317 (2016)Cite this article

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. We use the term behavior analysis here and throughout the manuscript.

  2. We note that behavior analysts are beginning to use mTurk for behavioral studies on choice and decision making, and are publishing such findings in behavioral journals (Bechler, Green, and Myerson 2015; Bickel et al. 2014; Jarmolowicz, Bickel, Carter, Franck, and Mueller 2012; Johnson, Herrmann, and Johnson 2015; Myerson, Baumann, and Green 2014; Roma, Hursh, and Hudja 2016).

  3. Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to address the extent to which people, particularly those in Western cultures, understand behavioral phenomena, including verbal and social behavior, we refer interested readers to Field and Hineline (2008) for a systematic discussion on the ubiquity of dispositional causes (i.e., traditional interpretations) for complex, temporally extended behavioral phenomena; namely, the verbal community may be uncomfortable with behavioral interpretations and prose that are distinct from their particular terms.

References

  • Aune, M., Hunter, J. E., Kim, H. J., & Kim, J. S. (2001). The effect of culture and self‐construals on predispositions toward verbal communication. Human Communication Research, 27, 382–408. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2001.tb00786.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bechler, C., Green, L., & Myerson, J. (2015). Proportion offered in the dictator and ultimatum games decreases with amount and social distance. Behavioural Processes, 115, 149–155. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2015.04.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s mechanical turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Couper, M. P., Traugott, M. W., & Lamias, M. J. (2001). Web survey design and administration. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 230–253. doi:10.1086/322199.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Critchfield, T. S., & Epting, L. K. (1998). The trouble with babies and the value of bath water: complexities in the use of verbal reports as data. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 15, 65–74.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Critchfield, T. S., Tucker, J. A., & Vuchinich, R. E. (1998). Self-report methods. In K. A. Lattal & M. Perone (Eds.), Handbook of methods for the experimental analysis of human behavior (pp. 435–470). New York: Plenum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dodds, P. S., Clark, E. M., Desu, S., Frank, M. R., Reagan, A. J., Williams, J. R., et al. (2015). Human language reveals a universal positivity bias. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 2389–2394. doi:10.1073/pnas.1411678112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google 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).

  • Foxx, R. M. (1996). Translating the covenant: the behavior analyst as ambassador and translator. Behavior Analyst, 19, 147–161.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, D. H. (2015). Improving the public perception of behavior analysis. Behavior Analyst, 1-7. doi:10.1007/s40614-015-0045-2

  • Friman, P. C. (2014a). Behavior analysts to the front! A 15-step tutorial on public speaking. Behavior Analyst, 37, 109–118. doi:10.1007/s40614-014-0009-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Friman, P. C. (2014b). Publishing in journals outside the box: attaining mainstream prominence requires demonstrations of mainstream relevance. Behavior Analyst, 37, 73–76. doi:10.1007/s40614-014-0014-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Jarmolowicz, D. P., Bickel, W. K., Carter, A. E., Franck, C. T., & Mueller, E. T. (2012). Using crowdsourcing to examine relations between delay and probability discounting. Behavioural Processes, 91, 308–312. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2012.09.001.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P. S., Herrmann, E. S., & Johnson, M. W. (2015). Opportunity costs of reward delays and the discounting of hypothetical money and cigarettes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 103, 87–107. doi:10.1002/jeab.110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kazdin, A. (1980). Acceptability of time-out from reinforcement procedures for disruptive behavior. Behavior Therapy, 11, 329–344. doi:10.1016/S0005-7894(80)80050-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klare, G. R., Mabry, J. E., & Gustafson, L. M. (1955a). The relationship of human interest to immediate retention and acceptability of technical material. Journal of Applied Psychology, 39, 92–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klare, G. R., Mabry, J. E., & Gustafson, L. M. (1955b). The relationship of style difficulty to immediate retention and acceptability of technical material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 287–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kloumann, I. M., Danforth, C. M., Harris, K. D., Bliss, C. A., & Dodds, P. S. (2012). Positivity of the English language. PloS One, 7, e29484. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029484.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  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 

  • Leigland, S. (2010). Functions of research in radical behaviorism for the further development of behavior analysis. Behavior Analyst, 33, 207–222.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lengel, G. J., & Mullins-Sweatt, S. N. (2016). The importance and acceptability of general and maladaptive personality trait computerized assessment feedback. Psychological Assessment. doi:10.1037/pas0000321.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • MacCorquodale, K. (1970). On Chomsky’s review of Skinner’s verbal behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 83–99. doi:10.1901/jeab.1970.13-83.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Madden, G. J. (2013). Go forth and be variable. Behavior Analyst, 36, 137–143.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s mechanical turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1–23. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maurice, C. (1993). Let me hear your voice: a family’s triumph over autism. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minkin, N., Braukmann, C. J., Minkin, B. L., Timbers, G. D., Timbers, B. J., Fixsen, D. L., et al. (1976). The social validation and training of conversational skills. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 127–139. doi:10.1901/jaba.1976.9-127.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, E. K. (1985). Public information, dissemination, and behavior analysis. Behavior Analyst, 8, 95–110.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, E. K. (2014). Stop preaching to the choir, publish outside the box: a discussion. Behavior Analyst, 37, 87–94. doi:10.1007/s40614-014-0011-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Moser, C. A., & Kalton, G. (1971). Survey methods in social investigation (2nd ed.). London: Heinemann Educational.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myerson, J., Baumann, A. A., & Green, L. (2014). Discounting of delayed rewards: (a)theoretical interpretation of the Kirby questionnaire. Behavioural Processes, 107, 99–105. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2014.07.021.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Normand, M. P. (2014). Opening Skinner’s box: an introduction. Behavior Analyst, 37, 67–68. doi:10.1007/s40614-014-0016-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pietras, C. J., Reilly, M. P., & Jacobs, E. A. (2013). Moving forward without changing course. Behavior Analyst, 36, 145–149.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Podlesnik, C. A. (2013). The openness is there. Behavior Analyst, 36, 151–153.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Rand, D. G. (2012). The promise of mechanical turk: how online labor markets can help theorists run behavioral experiments. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 299, 172–179. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2011.03.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rapucci, N. D., & Saunders, J. T. (1974). The social psychology of behavior modification: problems of implementation in natural settings. American Psychologist, 29, 649–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, D. D. (2014). Determining how, when, and whether you should publish outside the box: sober advice for early career behavior analysts. Behavior Analyst, 37, 83–86. doi:10.1007/s40614-014-0012-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolider, A., Axelrod, S., & Van Houten, R. (1998). Don’t speak behaviorism to me: how to clearly and effectively communicate behavioral interventions to the general public. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 20, 39–56.

    Article  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 

  • Schlinger, H. D. (2014). Publishing outside the box: unforeseen dividends of talking to strangers. Behavior Analyst, 37, 77–81. doi:10.1007/s40614-014-0010-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton.

    Book  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 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1975). The steep and thorny way to a science of behavior. American Psychologist, 30, 42–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1977). Herrnstein and the evolution of behaviorism. American Psychologist, 32, 1006–1012. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.32.12.1006.

    Article  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

  • Sprouse, J. (2011). A validation of Amazon mechanical turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in linguistic theory. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 155–167.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • St. Peter, C. C. (2013). Changing course through collaboration. Behavior Analyst, 36, 155–160.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Vyse, S. (2013). Changing course. Behavior Analyst, 36, 123–135.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Vyse, S. (2014). Publishing outside the box: popular press books. Behavior Analyst, 37, 69–72. doi:10.1007/s40614-014-0013-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Witt, J. C., & Martens, B. K. (1983). Assessing the acceptability of behavioral interventions. Psychology in the Schools, 20, 50–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witt, J. C., Martens, B. K., & Elliott, S. N. (1984). Factors affecting teachers’ judgments of the acceptability of behavioral interventions: time involvement, behavior problem severity, and type of intervention. Behavior Therapy, 15, 204–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. C., & Bougie, E. (2007). Intergroup contact and minority-language education: reducing language-based discrimination and its negative impact. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26, 157–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Kansas, 4048 Dole Human Development Center, 1000 Sunnyside Avenue, Lawrence, KS, 66045-7555, USA

    Amel Becirevic & Derek D. Reed

  2. Illinois State University, Normal, IL, USA

    Thomas S. Critchfield

Authors
  1. Amel Becirevic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas S. Critchfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Derek D. Reed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Derek D. Reed.

Ethics declarations

Funding

The authors used no grant funding in this study.

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.

Informed Consent

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Becirevic, A., Critchfield, T.S. & Reed, D.D. On the Social Acceptability of Behavior-Analytic Terms: Crowdsourced Comparisons of Lay and Technical Language. BEHAV ANALYST 39, 305–317 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-016-0067-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-016-0067-4

Keywords

search

Navigation