A Rose Is a Rose Is a Rose: A Response to Cox et al. (2018).
Define your humanistic stance in plain words before you defend the field.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Shyman (2019) wrote a short reply to Cox et al. (2018).
The paper is pure theory—no kids, no data, no trials.
It defends behavior analysis against the charge that the field is cold and un-human.
What they found
The author says the fight is about words, not heart.
If we clarify our philosophy first, critics can see we already value people.
How this fits with other research
Baer (1974) said the same thing 45 years earlier: speak so your own peers will listen.
Critchfield et al. (2017) gave data—our jargon sounds harsh to outsiders.
Freedman (2016) then showed how to swap cold terms for warm, plain language.
Boydston et al. (2020) added that even the job title “behavior analyst” confuses parents.
Together these papers extend Eric’s plea: fix the words, fix the image.
Why it matters
Before you teach parents, staff, or funders, pick one warm sentence that says why we do this.
Swap “behavioral reduction” for “helping Jake play safely with his sister.”
Your clarity becomes the field’s humanity.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Open your parent handout and replace the three most technical terms with everyday verbs.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Cox, Villegas, and Barlow (2018) published a reply to an article in which I ( Shyman, 2016 ) argued that there were fundamental philosophical problems with behavior analytic intervention that prevent it from being considered as a humanistic approach. A number of important points were raised about the argument including criticisms and the need for clarifications, as well as merits. This article will provide a response to three of the main critiques proffered by the authors.
Intellectual and developmental disabilities, 2019 · doi:10.1352/1934-9556-57.4.337