ABSTRACT
Behavior analysts are concerned with developing strong client-therapist relationships. One challenge to the development of such relationships may be a reliance on technical language that stakeholders find unpleasant. Previous research suggests that some behavior analysis terms evoke negative emotional responses. However, most relevant research was conducted with individuals from the general public and not individuals with a history of interaction with behavior analysts. The current study evaluated how parents of individuals with disabilities, who accessed behavior analytic services for their child, rated their emotional responses to 40 behavior analysis terms. We found that half of behavior analysis terms were rated as less pleasant than the majority of English words by parents. Furthermore, word emotion ratings by our stakeholder sample corresponded closely to norms obtained from the general public (Warriner et al. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1191-1207, 2013). Our findings suggest that, while learning history may mediate some emotional responses to words, published word emotion data could be a useful guide to how stakeholders may respond to behavior analysis terminology. A need remains for additional studies examining word emotion responses that may be unique to particular sub-categories of stakeholders and evaluating how emotional responses impact the development of effective relationships.
ABSTRACT
Previous surveys revealed the majority of certified behavior analysts reported using applied behavior analysis (ABA) as a treatment for individuals on the autism spectrum. However, some certificants have also reported using treatments without evidence (Schreck et al. Behavioral Interventions, 31(4), 355-376, 2016; Schreck & Mazur Behavioral Interventions: Theory & Practice in Residential & Community- Based Clinical Programs, 23(3), 201-212, 2008). The field of ABA has undergone many changes in the last five years. This survey evaluated trends in the use and variables influencing the use of autism treatments over that time. Results indicated that study participants (N = 921 BCBA-Ds, BCBAs, BCaBAs, and RBTs) were significantly less likely to report current use of ABA and some unestablished treatments (e.g., DIR Floortime, sensory integration therapy) than participants in 2016 (Schreck et al. Behavioral Interventions, 31(4), 355-376, 2016). Participants frequently cited persuasion by others as an influence for their treatment selections. Because behavior analysts' use of unestablished treatments may be detrimental to client outcomes and the reputation and success of the field of ABA, future research is needed to identify methods for increasing behavior analysts' use of empirically supported treatments.
ABSTRACT
As the field of behavior analysis expands, our need to develop ourselves as more effective collaborators, particularly with families who may be the primary consumers of our science, becomes paramount. As scientists, our training lies primarily in the behavior analytic technologies that we study and apply. But our ability to disseminate our science, collaborate with non-behavior analysts, and ultimately grow our field hinges on our ability to navigate interpersonal situations in a way that puts forth compassion and humanity. We have the opportunity and capability to use our empirical procedures to implement and assess the effectiveness of interventions that target the soft skills of our field. The current article discusses the benefits of empathic and collaborative approaches in fields related to behavior analysis and provides suggestions for current behavior analysts to incorporate compassionate care into their practices. We provide a checklist for compassionate interactions accompanied by possibilities for its use as a tool for self-evaluation, procedural fidelity, and comprehensive training in the area of collaboration with families. Finally, we discuss areas for future research with respect to assessing and improving behavior analysts' compassionate approaches to treatment.
