The Language of Science

Evaluating Experts' Consensus on Behavioral Principles

Over the history of our field, scholars have emphasized the critical importance that behavioral principles play in applied behavior analysis, underlining their central position as the foundation on which the field is built. Therefore, behavior analysts must have a robust comprehension of behavioral principles to be conceptually systematic, starting with understanding what constitutes a behavioral principle. Although one might assume that the behavior analytical literature clearly identifies a set of basic principles that define our field, there is no generally agreed-upon list. This study aimed to get consensus from doctoral-level behavior analysts on what they viewed as the basic principles of behavior analysis. To do so, we created a list of terms from behavior analysis texts and surveyed participants to identify whether each term constituted a basic principle or a behavioral procedure. The results suggest that there is not good consensus on what constitutes behavioral principles among doctoral-level behavior analysts who completed the survey and that there may be differences in the views of faculty and nonfaculty behavior analysts. Potential contributing factors to these results are discussed. This survey study constitutes a first step in focusing behavior analysts on this important topic and starting a discussion that could further clarify the principles that define our field.

Ecological Momentary Assessment: A Systematic Review of Validity Research

Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a self-report method that involves intensive longitudinal assessment of behavior and environmental conditions during everyday activities. EMA has been used extensively in health and clinical psychology to investigate a variety of health behaviors, including substance use, eating, medication adherence, sleep, and physical activity. However, it has not been widely implemented in behavior analytic research. This is likely an example of the empirically based skepticism with which behavioral scientists view self-report measures. We reviewed studies comparing electronic, mobile EMA (mEMA) to more objective measures of health behavior to explore the validity of mEMA as a measurement tool, and to identify procedures and factors that may promote the accuracy of mEMA. We identified 32 studies that compared mEMA to more objective measures of health behavior or environmental events (e.g., biochemical measures or automated devices such as accelerometers). Results showed that the correspondence rates varied considerably across individuals, behavior, and studies (agreement rates ranged from 1.8%-100%), and no unifying variables could be identified across the studies that found high correspondence. The findings suggest that mEMA can be an accurate measurement tool, but further research should be conducted to identify procedures and variables that promote accurate responding.

Behavior analytic jargon does not seem to influence treatment acceptability ratings

Some have argued that behavior analysts have insulated themselves by eschewing the vernacular and adopting idiosyncratic and sometimes counterintuitive technical terms to describe their science and practice. Because of this, behavior analysis plays a minor role in psychology and related fields and effective behavior-change interventions go unused. All told, findings about the effects of behavior-analytic jargon are mixed. Studies that provided technical terms independent of context have produced unfavorable results, whereas studies that have provided context have produced positive or neutral results, overall. This study evaluated the effects of behavioral jargon on the acceptability ratings of several applied behavior analysis interventions described in terms of varying target behaviors, populations, and settings. We presented brief vignettes adapted from published research articles that were described in either jargon or nonjargon versions. There were no appreciable differences in the rated acceptability of interventions described with or without jargon.

Who Has the Last Word? Radical Behaviorism, Science, and Verbal Behavior about Verbal Behavior

A radical behaviorist epistemology recognizes the recursivity inherent in behavior analysis: as behaving organisms, we not only take behavior as our subject matter but we are also part of it. Such a naturalization of epistemology, however, is not without its critics. In this article, my aim is to assess some of the arguments that were directed against this approach by the American philosopher Thomas Nagel in his book The Last Word (1997). In particular, I address Nagel's arguments regarding (1) the shortcomings of naturalistic explanations of scientific knowledge and (2) the impossibility of circumventing a realistic, representational epistemology. Regarding (1), I argue that although Nagel is right in arguing that there is no neutral or external viewpoint from which we can understand scientific knowledge, the naturalistic explanation of such knowledge proposed by radical behaviorists is not only possible, but have important practical advantages, insofar as it allows the identification of the variables that control scientific behavior. Regarding (2), I argue that although behavior scientists will frequently talk and write in descriptive ways, the function of descriptive verbal behavior in science is not to represent reality but to coordinate our collective behavior in dealing with the environment. I conclude that instead of avoiding an evolutionary account of rationality, as Nagel suggests, we have every reason to further pursue it.