Practitioner Development

The Future Is Female (and Behavior Analysis): A Behavioral Account of Sexism and How Behavior Analysis Is Simultaneously Part of the Problem and Solution

Baires et al. (2020) · Behavior Analysis in Practice 2020
★ The Verdict

Use ABA tools on ABA itself to break the sexist loops that silence women.

✓ Read this if BCBAs who sit on boards, teach courses, or supervise staff.
✗ Skip if Clinicians looking only for direct-intervention data.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Baires and colleagues wrote a position paper. They asked why behavior analysis lets sexist rules stay inside its own house.

They looked at hiring, journal reviews, and BACB pathways. They said we already own the tools to fix this.

02

What they found

The paper found no new data. Instead it mapped everyday sexist acts—like all-male panels—onto basic ABA terms.

The authors showed that reinforcement, punishment, and stimulus control keep women out of leadership posts.

03

How this fits with other research

Blair et al. (2020) extends the same lens to autism. They warn that male norms hide ASD in girls, so our assessments need a gender check.

Sevon (2022) keeps the activist stance but swaps gender for race. He urges BCBAs to fight anti-Black discipline gaps in schools.

Beggiato et al. (2017) gives hard numbers. Their ADI-R study proves girls score differently, backing up Blair’s warning with data.

Together the four papers form a set: behavior analysts must audit their own contingencies—whether the axis is gender, race, or diagnosis.

04

Why it matters

You can run a quick equity scan of your next case or meeting. Count who talks, who gets cited, who gets interrupted. Then change the contingencies: rotate roles, use blind review, reinforce female voices. Small moves, big payoff.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Track speaker gender at your next team meeting; if men out-talk women, prompt and reinforce female contributions.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
theoretical
Finding
not reported

03Original abstract

In 2015, females accounted for 82.2% of Board Certified Behavior Analysts (Nosik & Grow, 2015, “Prominent Women in Behavior Analysis: An Introduction,” The Behavior Analyst, 38, 225–227). Females represent most certificants, yet their presence in research and on editorial boards for peer-reviewed journals is lower than males’ presence (Li, Curiel, Pritchard, & Poling, 2018, “Participation of Women in Behavior Analysis Research: Some Recent and Relevant Data,” Behavior Analysis in Practice, 11, 160–164). Various contingencies are certainly involved, which may include instances of sexism or gender-based discrimination. Despite behavior analysis having the means to change contingencies that reinforce sexism, the discipline is not adequately taking cultural contingencies into consideration. As a result, behavior analysis is simultaneously part of the problem and the potential solution. Moreover, behavior analysis has not adequately studied sexism and its subtle topographies despite sexism being a long-existing behavioral phenomenon. The purpose of the current paper is to provide a behavioral account of sexism, particularly in the field of behavior analysis. Feminism as a culture and views of feminism from males and females will be further examined, as well as their implications for behavior change. Finally, recommendations for cultural and individual change will be discussed to promote gender equity. The online version of this article (10.1007/s40617-019-00394-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Behavior Analysis in Practice, 2020 · doi:10.1007/s40617-019-00394-x