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

Abstract

[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 33(1) of Analysis of Verbal Behavior (see record 2017-24092-002). The correct Family Name of the second author is Becirevic. The original article was corrected.] 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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)