RESUMO
It has been suggested that non-experts regard the jargon of behavior analysis as abrasive, harsh, and unpleasant. If this is true, excessive reliance on jargon could interfere with the dissemination of effective services. To address this often discussed but rarely studied issue, we consulted a large, public domain list of English words that have been rated by members of the general public for the emotional reactions they evoke. Selected words that behavior analysts use as technical terms were compared to selected words that are commonly used to discuss general science, general clinical work, and behavioral assessment. There was a tendency for behavior analysis terms to register as more unpleasant than other kinds of professional terms and also as more unpleasant than English words generally. We suggest possible reasons for this finding, discuss its relevance to the challenge of deciding how to communicate with consumers who do not yet understand or value behavior analysis, and advocate for systematic research to guide the marketing of behavior analysis.
RESUMO
In Skinner's (1957) conceptual analysis, the process of self-editing is integral to the dynamic complexities of multiply determined verbal behavior, but the analysis has generated little in the way of an experimental analysis. The majority of scientific work on self-editing has taken place within linguistics and cognitive psycholinguistics. Here we compare and contrast behavioral and cognitive psycholinguistic approaches to self-editing, highlighting points of contact that can be identified despite fundamental differences in theoretical styles. We conclude that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive on all dimensions, and suggest that a consideration of cognitive psycholinguistic research may help to spur an experimental analysis of self-editing from a behavioral perspective.