The Psychological Record

, Volume 42, Issue 3, pp 355–368 | Cite as

Acceptance of Labels for Behavioral Response-Reduction Procedures and the Users of Those Procedures

  • Lyle Grant
  • Annabel Ness Evans


The acceptability of labels for behavioral response-reduction procedures and the users of those procedures was evaluated. Introductory psychology students read a lesson designed to teach the behavior analysis concept conventionally known as punishment. In one version of the lesson, the concept was labeled as “punishment,” in another version it was labeled as “disinforcement,” and in a third version it was labeled as “attenuation.” The lessons also differed in terms of how the users of the response-reduction techniques were labeled: behavior analysts, radical behavior analysts, behaviorists, radical behaviorists, psychologists, and radical psychologists. The disinforcement and attenuation labels, and nonradical labels were more favorably evaluated than the punishment and radical labels. Psychologists were more favorably evaluated on some measures than behaviorists or behavior analysts. The discussion emphasizes the advantages of replacing terms that are responded to negatively with ones that will be more favorably received.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. ARENSON, S. J., LANNON, P. B., OFFERMANN, L. R., & KAFTON, A. (1982). The validity of attitude change by classical conditioning. The Journal of Social Psychology, 117, 243–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. AXELROD, S., & APSCHE, J. (Eds.). (1983). The effects of punishment on human behavior. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. AZRIN, N. H., & HOLZ, W. C. (1966). Punishment. In W. K. Honig (Ed.), Operant behavior: Areas of research and application (pp. 380–447). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  4. DAY, W. (1983). On the difference between radical and methodological behaviorism. Behaviorism, 11, 89–102.Google Scholar
  5. DEITZ, S. M., & ARRINGTON, R. A. (1983). Factors confusing language use in the analysis of behavior. Behaviorism, 11, 117–132.Google Scholar
  6. FOXX, R. M., & SHAPIRO, S. T. (1978). The timeout ribbon: A nonexclusionary timeout procedure. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. GRANT, L. (1986). Categorizing and concept learning. In H. W. Reese & L. J. Parrott (Eds.), Behavior science: Philosophical, methodological, and empirical advances (pp. 139–162). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. HARZEM, P., & MILES, T. R. (1978). Conceptual issues in operant psychology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. HAWKINS, R. P., PETERSON, R. F., SCHWEID, E., & BIJOU, S. W. (1966). Behavior therapy in the home: Amelioration of problem parent-child relations with the parent in a therapeutic role. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 4, 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. KAZDIN, A. E. (1980). Acceptability of alternative treatments for deviant child behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 259–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. KAZDIN, A. E. (1981). Acceptability of child treatment techniques: The influence of treatment efficacy and adverse side-effects. Behavior Therapy, 12, 493–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. KAZDIN, A. E. (1982). Methodological strategies in behavior-therapy research. In G. T. Wilson & C. M. Franks (Eds.), Contemporary behavior therapy: Conceptual and empirical foundations (pp. 403–442). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  13. KAZDIN, A. E., & COLE, P. M. (1981). Attitudes and labeling biases toward behavior modification: The effects of labels, content, and jargon. Behavior Therapy, 12, 56–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. KELLEY, H. H. (1950). The warm-cold variable in first impressions of persons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 431–439.Google Scholar
  15. MAISON, J. L, & DILORENZO, T. M. (1984). Punishment and its alternatives. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. MCSWEENY, A. J. (1978). Effects of response cost on the behavior of a million persons: Charging for directory assistance in Cincinnati. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 47–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. MOORE, L. P., MOORE, J. W., & HAUCK, W. E. (1982). Conditioning children’s attitudes toward alcohol, smoking, and drugs. Journal of Experimental Education, 50, 154–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. MORAN, G. (1981). Second-order classical conditioning of meaning in the Staats format. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 18, 299–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. MORRIS, E. K. (1985). Public information, dissemination, and behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 8, 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. NELSON, R. O., & HAYES, S. C. (1979). The nature of behavioral assessment: A commentary. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 491–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. OSGOOD, C. E., SUCI, G. J., & TANNEBAUM, P. H. (1957). Measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  22. REPPUCCI, N. D., & SAUNDERS, J. T. (1974). Social psychology of behavior modification: Problems of implementation in natural settings. American Psychologist, 29, 649–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. SCHNEIDER, S. M., & MORRIS, E. K. (1987). A history of the term Radical Behaviorism: From Watson to Skinner. The Behavior Analyst, 10, 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. SINGH, N. N., & KATZ, R. C. (1985). On the modification of acceptability ratings for alternative child treatments. Behavior Modification, 9, 375–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. SINGH, N. N., WATSON, J. E., & WINTON, A. S. W. (1987). Parents’ acceptability ratings of alternative child treatments. Behavior Modification, 11,17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. SKINNER, B. F. (1945). The operational analysis of psychological terms. Psychological Review, 52, 270–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. STAATS, A. W., & STAATS, C. K. (1958). Attitudes established by classical conditioning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 57, 37–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. STAATS, C. K., & STAATS, A. W. (1957). Meaning established by classical conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 74–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. TENNYSON, R. D., & COCCHIARELLA, M. J. (1986). An empirically based instructional design theory for teaching concepts. Review of Educational Research, 56, 40–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. TURKAT, I. D., & FEUERSTEIN, M. (1978). Behavior modification and public misconception. American Psychologist. 33, 194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. UPPER, D. (1973). A “ticket” system for reducing ward rules violations on a token economy program. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry 4, 137–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. WITT, J. C., MARTENS, B. K., & ELLIOTT, S. N. (1984). Factors affecting teachers’ judgments of the acceptability of behavioral interventions: Time involvement, behavior problem severity, and type of intervention. Behavior Therapy 15, 204–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. WOLF, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. WOOLFOLK, A. E., WOOLFOLK, R. L., & WILSON, G. T. (1977). A rose by any other name…: Labeling bias and attitudes toward behavior modification. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 45, 184–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. WOOLFOLK, R. L., & WOOLFOLK, A. E. (1979). Modifying the effect of the behavior modification label. Behavior Therapy 10, 575–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lyle Grant
    • 1
  • Annabel Ness Evans
    • 2
  1. 1.Athabasca UniversityUSA
  2. 2.ColdewayConcordia CollegeEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations