JEAB: Past, present, and future

An experimental analysis of gender-biased verbal behavior and self-editing using an online chat analog

The current study investigated the effects of female and male audiences on gender-biased verbal behavior and self-editing using an online chat environment analog. The chat analog allowed access to self-editing behaviors, which are frequently covert, thus providing additional information about verbal episodes. We examined whether the strength and the dimensions of verbal responses differentially varied across the female and male audience conditions using visual inspection and statistical analysis. Participants were 28 typically developing adults. Overt responses were recorded for interrupting, and both overt and covert responses were recorded for disagreeing, pressuring, and self-editing. Visual inspection revealed differentiated overt and covert disagreeing, pressuring, and interrupting for some participants, while statistical analysis using Fisher's exact test did not reveal significant differences in the dependent variables between audience's perceived gender and participants' gender. Differentiated responding between female and male audiences suggests that perceived gender can exert stimulus control over a speaker's behavior. Although we didn't observe consistent gender-biased responding for all the participants, our experimental evaluation functions as a proof-of-concept study that can encourage the use of this methodology to study complex social behavior.

Search and Selection Procedures of Literature Reviews in Behavior Analysis

Literature reviews allow professionals to identify effective interventions and assess developments in research and practice. As in other forms of scientific inquiry, the transparency of literature searches enhances the credibility of findings, particularly in regards to intervention research. The current review evaluated the characteristics of search methods employed in literature reviews appearing in publications concerning behavior analysis (n = 28) from 1997 to 2017. Specific aims included determining the frequency of narrative, systematic, and meta-analytic reviews over time; examining the publication of reviews in specific journals; and evaluating author reports of literature search and selection procedures. Narrative reviews (51.30%; n = 630) represented the majority of the total sample (n = 1,228), followed by systematic (31.51%; n = 387) and meta-analytic (17.18%; n = 211) reviews. In contrast to trends in related fields (e.g., special education), narrative reviews continued to represent a large portion of published reviews each year. The evaluated reviews exhibited multiple strengths; nonetheless, issues involving the reporting and execution of searches may limit the validity and replicability of literature reviews. A discussion of implications for research follows an overview of findings.