ArticleJournal of applied behavior analysis2022
Behavior analytic jargon does not seem to influence treatment acceptability ratings.
Article in Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Practical Resources for Embedding Opportunities to Practice Dissemination-Related Skills Into Coursework and Supervision Experiences.Behavior analysis in practice · 2026Review
- Context and Meaning in Acts of Translation and Interpretation.The Analysis of verbal behavior · 2025Review
- A Survey of Why and How Clinicians Change Reinforcers during Teaching Sessions.Behavior analysis in practice · 2024Article
- Introducing LADER: A Structured Approach to Effective Professional Interactions for Behavior Analysts.Behavior analysis in practice · 2024Review
- Lexicon-Based Sentiment Analysis in Behavioral Research.Perspectives on behavior science · 2024Article
- Parents' Emotional Responses to Behavior Analysis Terms: A Comparative Analysis.The Analysis of verbal behavior · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Some have argued that behavior analysts have insulated themselves by eschewing the vernacular and adopting idiosyncratic and sometimes counterintuitive technical terms to describe their science and practice. Because of this, behavior analysis plays a minor role in psychology and related fields and effective behavior-change interventions go unused. All told, findings about the effects of behavior-analytic jargon are mixed. Studies that provided technical terms independent of context have produced unfavorable results, whereas studies that have provided context have produced positive or neutral results, overall. This study evaluated the effects of behavioral jargon on the acceptability ratings of several applied behavior analysis interventions described in terms of varying target behaviors, populations, and settings. We presented brief vignettes adapted from published research articles that were described in either jargon or nonjargon versions. There were no appreciable differences in the rated acceptability of interventions described with or without jargon.
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.