Editor's comment.
JEAB opened its doors to cognitive-behavioral debate in 1982, and later papers show the field still needs you to speak up outside the choir.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The editor of the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior wrote a short note in 1982.
He said the journal would publish a back-and-forth about cognitive vs. behavioral views.
The goal was to spark open discussion, not to pick a winner.
What they found
The page did not report new data.
It simply told readers, "We want your balanced critiques. Send them in."
How this fits with other research
Hayes (1991) and Shafer (1993) later kept the debate alive. They showed behavior analysts still welcome criticism.
Crosbie (1993) pushed the idea further. It urged researchers to talk with people outside behavior analysis.
Morris (2014) turned the idea into action. It gave tips for publishing in non-behavior-analytic journals.
Dixon (2014) added podcasts and video abstracts so more people could join the talk.
Why it matters
If you want the field to grow, share your work beyond the usual circles. Submit short letters, record a podcast clip, or write a guest post for a teacher blog. One small public piece can pull new voices into the conversation.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Draft a 200-word letter to the editor of your local teacher magazine explaining one ABA term in plain English
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In 1976, Catania wrote an editorial on the process of book reviewing for the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. In that editorial, he commented that the purpose of JEAB reviews was to occasion discussion of major issues in the analysis of behavior, or of potential relations between the analysis of behavior and other research orientations. In 1981, Wasserman contributed a review of Cog- nitive Processes in Animal Behavior, edited by Hulse, Wasserman's review occasioned the following comment by Malone. In view of the current interest in cognitive interpretations of behavior, and in the interest of providing further discussion of al- ternative approaches within the pages of this Journal, I decided to publish it, and invited Wasserman to use Malone's comment as an occasion for further reflection on the issues involved. He has done so, and his own com- ment, which follows Malone's, is the result.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1982 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1982.38-204