ArticleThe Analysis of verbal behavior2017
On the Social Validity of Behavior-Analytic Communication: a Call for Research and Description of One Method.
Article in The Analysis of verbal behavior, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Parents' Emotional Responses to Behavior Analysis Terms: A Comparative Analysis.The Analysis of verbal behavior · 2023Article
- Behavior analytic jargon does not seem to influence treatment acceptability ratings.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2022Article
- Soft Skills: The Case for Compassionate Approaches or How Behavior Analysis Keeps Finding Its Heart.Behavior analysis in practice · 2021Review
- The Future of Verbal Behavior: Together Is Better.The Analysis of verbal behavior · 2018Article
- Why We Are Still Not Acting to Save the World: the Upward Challenge of a Post-Skinnerian Behavior Science.Perspectives on behavior science · 2018Article
- Emotional Overtones of Behavior Analysis Terms in English and Five Other Languages.Behavior analysis in practice · 2018Article
- Editorial: Retrospections, Prospections and New Paths for Behavioral Science.The Behavior analyst · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It has often been suggested that nonexperts find the communication of behavior analysts to be viscerally off-putting. We argue that this concern should be the focus of systematic research rather than mere discussion, and describe five studies that illustrate how publicly available lists of word-emotion ratings can be used to estimate the responses of general-audience listeners. Our results provide support for the hypothesis that some of the ways in which behavior analysts tend to discuss their discipline can be unpleasant, but also illustrate inter- and intraindividual variations in pleasantness. Although our methods are atypical for behavior-analytic research, they are appropriate to the topic and sufficient to suggest many directions for additional research through which a field that considers itself sophisticated in matters of verbal behavior might shed light on its own disciplinary communication challenges.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.