Practitioner Development

On the Social Validity of Behavior-Analytic Communication: a Call for Research and Description of One Method

Critchfield et al. (2017) · The Analysis of Verbal Behavior 2017
★ The Verdict

Run your ABA handouts through a free word-emotion list to catch and replace language that sounds harsh to lay ears.

✓ Read this if BCBAs who write parent summaries, social stories, or staff training materials.
✗ Skip if Practitioners who only use clinical jargon with peers and never communicate with families or the public.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Critchfield et al. (2017) built a quick way to check if ABA words feel cold or harsh to non-experts. They fed common behavior-analytic phrases into a free public tool that scores how pleasant or unpleasant words sound.

The paper walks readers through the steps so any practitioner can copy the method and test their own reports, flyers, or talks before sharing them.

02

What they found

Several everyday ABA terms earned low pleasantness scores from lay raters. Words like 'contingency,' 'extinction,' or 'manipulation' sounded more negative than neutral.

The authors do not claim the tool is perfect, only that it gives an easy first check to spot language that might turn families or teachers off.

03

How this fits with other research

Walton (2016) extends this idea by giving ready-made warmer replacements—say 'learning plan' instead of 'behavioral intervention'—that you can plug into the sentiment tool for a second check.

Wyatt (2009) and Bowe et al. (1983) warned earlier that technical talk can push people toward medical or mentalistic views; Critchfield et al. (2017) now offer a concrete meter to see exactly how off-putting the words are.

Whalon et al. (2019) urge ethical, systematic outreach; pairing their dissemination plan with the sentiment tool lets you test each message before it goes live.

04

Why it matters

Next time you write a parent handout or train staff, paste your text into the free word-emotion list before you hit print. Swap the low-scoring jargon for friendlier terms, then re-test. In five minutes you gain a report that is less likely to alienate caregivers, principals, or payers, and you head off the 'cold scientist' label that still haunts our field.

FREE CEUs

Get CEUs on This Topic — Free

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.

60+ on-demand CEUs (ethics, supervision, general)
New live CEU every Wednesday
Community of 500+ BCBAs
100% free to join
Join The ABA Clubhouse — Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Pick your most-used parent handout, paste it into the Affective Norms for English Words online list, and swap any terms that score below neutral with warmer synonyms.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
methodology paper
Population
not specified
Finding
not reported

03Original 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.

The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 2017 · doi:10.1007/s40616-017-0077-7