2014 AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

The VOLUME 14
Behavior Analyst NUMBERS 1 & 2
Today JULY 2014

The zeitgeist of behavior analytic research in the

21st century: a keyword analysis
Derek D. Reed1, Florence D. DiGennaro Reed2, Sarah R. Jenkins3, & Jason M. Hirst4
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Behavior analysis appears to be at a crossroads of science and practice. Recent concerns and discussion within the flagship
journal of the Association of Behavior Analysis International (abai ; the Behavior Analyst) suggest that basic behavior
analytic research has become too esoteric, while applied research has become too focused on service delivery approaches to
children with developmental disabilities. Moreover, it has been argued that little overlap between basic and applied research
has come via translation between these two wings of our science. The purpose of the present analysis was to chronicle the
directionusing keywordsof behavior analytic research from the years 20002009 to assess the validity of these concerns
ABSTRACT

and to document the publication trends of flagship journals. Keywords were extracted from each article published in Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, The Analysis of Verbal Behavior and the Behavior
Analyst. Data were analyzed using frequency of keywords appearing in each journal as well as across journals. Word clouds were
generated from the frequency data to show a visual representation of popular focus areas, where keywords with the highest
frequencies appear graphically larger. Additionally, an analysis compared each of the journals with each other to quantify the
degree of keyword overlap as a crude index of cross representation.
keywords : behavior analysis, keyword analysis, publication trends, zeitgeist

S
kinners publication of Walden Two in 1948 may be
considered a pivotal moment in the science of behavior;
the emerging technologies of behavior analysis and operant
learning now had a theoretical description of the potential to
architect socially important behavior change. As the science of
behavior began to inform social reform and human treatment
approaches, the applied wing of the field of behavior analysis grew
and the enterprise of applied behavior analysis (ABA) took root
(see Rutherford, 2009). Such a growth, however, began to depict
two distinct disciplines within the field, ABA and the experimental
analysis of behavior (EAB). Within just a few decades, the strong
majority of editorial staff for Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
(83%) and Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (74%) re-
ported that ABA and EAB have become increasingly separate from
one another (Poling, Picker, Grossett, Hall-Johnson, & Holbrook,
1981), providing some evidence that the field was fracturing into
two distinct disciplines (see Mace, 1994). Fortunately, these staff
also viewed this trend as problematic for behavioral psychology.
Fast forward several decades later to present day The future
direction of behavior analysis seems to be at a crossroads (see
1 Department of Applied Behavioral Science, University of Kansas; 2 Department of
Applied Behavioral Science, University of Kansas; 3 Department of Applied Behavioral
Science, University of Kansas; 4 Department of Applied Behavioral Science, University
of Kansas. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Derek D.
Reed, Department of Applied Behavioral Science, University of Kansas, 4048 Dole
Human Development Center, 1000 Sunnyside Avenue, Lawrence, ks 66045-7555.
E-mail: dreed@ku.edu. The authors wish to thank Tom Critchfield for his insightful
recommendations and comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
Schlinger, 2010). Although the discussion of the rift between EAB
and ABA was previously an exercise of verbal behavior on philo-
sophical positions and a discussion piece for how the field should
proceed, we are now seeing evidence of a growing divide across
our branches of behavioral science. As some behavior analysts
have proposed, contemporary EAB research has become rather
nuancedaccording to Poling (2010), the E in EAB should stand
for esotericand has drifted away from issues of social impor-
tance (e.g., Poling, 2010; Critchfield, 2011a). Under this direction,
it is feared that EAB may be alienating itself from issues of applied
relevance. At the other end of the continuum, applied research in
ABA has become somewhat synonymous with the assessment and
treatment of problem behaviors associated with developmental
disabilities (Friman, 2010; Poling, 2010). This trend moves applied
research further away from directly translating principles and
concepts from EAB. As summarized by Critchfield (2011a), this
growing schism may be an artifact of a lack of collaborative trans-
lation. Mace and Critchfield (2010) contend that such scientific
translation in behavior analysis is at best, occasional (pg. 304).
So what, then, is the zeitgeist of behavior analytic research in the
21st century? Is argument of a divide between basic science (EAB)
and applied research (ABA) valid? Perhaps more importantly, can
we objectively answer any of these questions? The answers to these
questions are complicated and take more than any one analysis
or discussion. Fortunately, however, we do have some guidance
on ways to approach these questions.

17
 REED, DIGENNARO REED, JENKINS, & HIRST
To objectively de-
scribe the function
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
of the field (with respect
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
to basic and applied interests), the
status quo has been to conduct cita-
tion analyses (see Garfield, 1972; e.g.,
Carr & Britton, 2003; Critchfield, 2002;
Critchfield & Reed, 2004; Elliott, Kineta, Fuqua, Ehrhardt, &
Poling, 2005; Laties & Mace, 1993; Perone, 1985; Poling, Alling,
& Fuqua, 1994) where researchers examine trends in citation
sources within and between journals. Perones citation analysis
(1985) of JEAB documented a stable trend in the publication
of human and non-human articles. Unfortunately, there was a
concomitant trend in nearly exclusive citation of non-human
studies in non-human JEAB publications (in human JEAB
publications, the number of citations of human studies approx-
imated those from non-human studies). This trend suggested
that, through Volume 38 (1982) of JEAB, human research had
little influence on research conceptualization or methodology.
Likewise the citation analyses of JABA and JEAB by Critchfield
(2002), as well as Critchfield and Reed (2004), found a strong
unidirectional relation which showed that JABA proportionally
cited JEAB articles over four times as frequently than JEAB cited
JABA articles. Although such approaches have been fruitful in
describing sources of influence in behavior analytic publications,
they speak very little to the topics represented in journals. That
is, citation analyses describe citations alone, not necessarily
the zeitgeist of scholarship. We propose that an empirical ap-
proach to understanding the culture of journals would better
address the question of whether EAB and ABA are fractioning
within the field of behavior analysis. The Oxford Dictionaries
(http://oxforddictionaries.com) defines culture (in the biological
sense of the term) as the (a) arts and other manifestations of
human intellectual achievement regarded collectively, and
(b) ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular
people or society. Understanding cultural aspects of EAB
and ABA thus squarely places the empirical emphasis on
current behaviorsnot influences (cf. cita-
tion analyses). That is, the field
could benefit from analyses
of trends within and across
journals (analogous to the
culture of the field), rather
than looking at the impact
18
of particular bodies of research based solely off
counts of references, which as been the focus of
previous analyses (e.g., how many human
or non-human studies were published in
JEAB; Perone, 1985).
Questions of cultural evo-
lution have been empirically
examined using a number of
analyses and metrics. For ex-
ample, Michel and colleagues
(2011) recently explored cul-
tural trends over time through
Figure 1. a word cloud for the Behavior the analysis of millions of En-
Analyst (tba ) depicting the most frequently
glish-written books. In this
reported keywords (n=32)
approach to what they term
culturomic analysis, researchers detect the rise and fall of terms,
keywords, and topics in published books with the interpretation
that these trends represent the evolving zeitgeist of English-speak-
ing cultures. Others have argued for a more crude analysis of
zeitgeist by examining citizen journalism conducted through
social media such as Twitter (Murthy, 2011; e.g., Chew & Eysen-
bach, 2010; Signorini, Segre, & Polgreen, 2011) or Google TrendsTM
(http://www.google.com/intl/en/trends/about.html) and Google
ZeitgeistTM to report the aggregate search terms. Only recently have
psychologists proposed the analysis of GoogleTM search terms for
scientific inquiry (Bentley & Ormerod, 2010; Cummings, 2009;
Guo, Zhang, & Zhai, 2010), but it appears as though such data may
help researchers quantify public interests. Despite the relatively
scant research literature on the above topics, it is becoming ap-
parent that advances in keyword analyses provide a useful metric
for cultural/professional zeitgeist.
The purpose of the present study was to apply the rationale
behind culturomic and search term research and analyses to the
study of published keywords in behavior analysis flagship journals
(The Analysis of Verbal Behavior [TAVB; ISSN 08899401], Journal
of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior [JEAB; ISSN 00225002],
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis [JABA; ISSN 00218855], and
The Behavior Analyst [TBA; ISSN 07386729]) from 20002009 in
an attempt to quantify the culture of contemporary behavioral
research in the 21st century. Specifically, we sought to document
any potential trends within topics appearing among the journals
and to examine whether the various disciplines within the field
(i.e., subfields) were trending on similar topics. Finally, by exam-
Figure 2. a word cloud for Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis (jaba )
depicting the most frequently
reported keywords (n=32)
Volume 14 | Numbers 1 & 2 | July 2014 | The Behavior Analyst Today
 THE ZEITGEIST OF BEHAVIOR ANALYTIC RESEARCH IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Table 1. Top 32 keywords in each journal, in order of most (top) to least frequent. The first number in parentheses indicates raw frequency of occurrence
within the journal, with the second number representing the relative proportion of keywords comprised by that word/phrase within the journal.
JABA JEAB TAVB TBA
functional analysis (121; .045) choice (77; .032) verbal behavior (21; .106) B.F. Skinner (20; .028)
autism (88; .033) concurrent schedule (43; .018) autism (19; .065) behavior analysis (20; .028)
problem behavior (82; .030) drug (37; .015) mand (11; .038) verbal behavior (18; .025)
dev. disabilities* (57; .021) discrimination (35; .014) tact (9; .031) aba * (15; .021)

choice (40; .015) stimulus equivalence (34; .014) joint control (8; .027) history (12; .017)
teaching (38; .014) matching to sample (33; .014) automatic reinforcement (7; .024) rft * (10; .014)

ncr * (37; .014)
safety (37; .014)
establishing operation (35; .013)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
reinforcement (26; .011) matching to sample (7; .024) radical behaviorism (9; .012)
stimulus control (24; .010) conditional discr.* (6; .021) clinical beh. analysis* (8; .011)
adults (23; .010) intraverbal (5; .017) cognition (8; .011)

preference assessment (33; .012) cond. discrimination* (23; .010) mul. exemplar training* (5; .017) eab * (8; .011)

prompting (32; .012) conditioned reinf.* (22; .009) stim.-stim. pairing* (5; .017) research (8; .011)
differential reinf.* (31; .011) fixed interval schedule (20; .008) B.F. Skinner (4; .014) teaching (8; .011)
reinforcement (30; .011) fixed ratio schedule (20; .008) children (4; .014) pragmatism (7; .010)
extinction (26; .010) matching law (20; .008) language (4; .014) stimulus control (7; .010)
feedback (25; .009) concurrent chains (18; .007) echoic (3; .010) private events (6; .008)
generalization (25; .009) generalized matching (18; .007) establishing operation (3; .010) autism (5; .007)
assessment (22; .008) resistance to change (18; .007) motivating operation (3; .010) behaviorism (5; .007)
negative reinf. (22; .008) learning (17; .007) naming (3; .010) dev. disabilities* (5; .007)
children (21; .008) reinf. schedules* (17; .007) stimulus control (3; .010) evolution (5; .007)
preference (21; .008) reinforcement delay (16; .007) teaching (3; .010) certification (4; .006)
adhd * (20; .007) variable-interval sch.* (16; 007) academic behavior (2; .007) derived stim. relations* (4; .006)
fct * (20; .007) matching (15; .006) autoclitic (2; .007) determinism (4; .006)
self-injurious behavior (20; .007) avoidance (14; .006) behavior analysis (2; .007) functional analysis (4; .006)
automatic reinf.* (19; .007) B.F. Skinner (14; .006) dev. disabilities* (2; .007) gender equity (4; .006)
preschoolers (19; .007) children (14; .006) functional analysis (2; .007) generalization (4; .006)
reinforcer assessment (19; .007) discounting (14; .006) generativity (2; .007) jeab (4; .006)

descriptive analysis (18; .007) preference (14; .006) language delay (2; .007) negative reinforcement (4; .006)
motivating operation (17; .006) dlyd match to sample* (13; .005) learning (2; .007) positive beh. support* (4; .006)
concurrent schedule (16; .006) transfer of function (13; .005) mental retardation (2; .007) problem behavior (4; .006)
drug (16; .006) verbal behavior (13; .005) preference (2; .007) reinforcement (4; .006)
self-control (16; .006) behavioral economics (12; .005) prompting (2; .007) stimulus equivalence (4; .006)
stereotypy (16; .006) multiple schedule (12; .005) receptive-echoic-tact transfer variability (4; .006)
procedure (2; .007)
*Keyword abbreviated from original term for table formatting purposes.

ining the degree of keyword overlap between the flagship journals, All of the journals, with one exception, used keywords for most, if
we sought to assess whether the data from these analyses could not all, of the articles in each issue during the decade we reviewed.
elucidate the growing concern that basic and applied research Our analysis of TAVB was limited to 2005 to 2009 because it did
wings are growing more disparate. not begin publishing keywords until 2005.
Keywords were subsequently edited in order to better capture
METHOD the representative content and focus globally. That is, we were
Transcription and editing procedures interested in summarizing general concepts as represented by
We transcribed the keywords indicated in all articles published keyword use. First, generally synonymous (but differently spelled)
between 2000 and 2009 in TBA, JABA, JEAB, and TAVB. Transcrip- keywords were converted to the most frequently used term (e.g.,
tion consisted of typing each keyword separately by article as it manding and mands were converted to mand). This task was
was written in the journal into a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel. accomplished by hand and determined by consensus for each

The Behavior Analyst Today | Volume 14 | Numbers 1 & 2 | July 2014 19

 REED, DIGENNARO REED, JENKINS, & HIRST

keyword. Second, keywords listed five or fewer times across the

four journals were changed to a broader term within the key-
word list (e.g., philosophical determinism
was converted to determinism) if one
existed (e.g., academic administrators,
authorship, willpower were not
converted). The edited keywords
were used for analysis. Despite
these edits, we refer to these
terms as keywords in the
remainder of this paper for
ease of discussion.

Data analyses
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

The transcription and editing procedures

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

yielded 6,738 keywords retained for further

analysis. Unlike JABA, TAVB, and TBA, JEAB
dictates specific keyword practices with respect to
required descriptors:
List no more than seven key words in descending order of im-
portance, with the only exception being that the response under
study (e.g., key peck) should be next to last and the species of
the subjects (e.g., pigeons, humans) listed last. (Preparation of
Manuscript, 2006, p. 143)
Thus, we opted to exclude the response (e.g., lever press, mouse
click) and species keywords (e.g., humans, pigeon, strains of the total number of keywords in each journal in which it appears.
rats/mice) from all analyses to better equate the content contained
within keyword sets. Our primary analyses concerned the cumu-
lative frequency of the most commonly indicated keywords. Data
analyses consisted of three procedures. First, we displayed the most
frequently reported keywords (n=32) for each journal in a word
cloud using Wordle. Because the top 32 keywords constituted
the top 33% of keywords in TBA (the journal of primary focus),
we applied this criterion to all other journals. Font size within
the word clouds reflects the relative keyword frequency; that is,
if word A occurs twice as much as word B, then the font size for
word A is double that of word B. Our second analysis consisted
of identifying the three most frequently reported keywords for
JABA, JEAB, and TAVB as well as
the three most frequently reported
research subject keywords
and generating a cumu-
lative record across
the years we analyzed.
We applied the same
procedures to summarize the
cumulative frequency of behavior
analysis subfields (as indicated by
keyword) in TBA.
To more precisely capture the correspondence between ABAIs
flagship journal (TBA) and the important subfield journals, as
well as correspondence between the three subfield journals, we
quantified the degree of keyword overlap across JABA, JEAB, TAVB,
and TBA. Specifically, we examined all keyword matches between
Figure 3. a word cloud for Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior (jeab) depicting the most frequently
reported keywords (n = 32)
all journals. If a keyword matched across two or more journals,
we recorded the relative frequency of this keyword in each jour-
nal in which it appeared. We then summed these within-journal
frequencies and divided the total number of matched keyword
frequencies by the total number of keywords published in each
respective journal during our 10-year review (5 years for TAVB).
Thus, due to differing numbers of total keywords across the four
journals, a shared keyword will constitute a different proportion of
Rater training and inter-rater agreement
Three doctoral students in behavioral psychology and one under-
graduate student in applied behavioral science served as raters. They
received group training on the transcription procedures and use
of the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet by two doctoral-level
behavior analysts (faculty members) and independently
transcribed one issue of an included journal until 100%
agreement was obtained. Additionally, we calculated
inter-rater agreement for a random sample of 22.9% of
the years we reviewed across journals.
Because raters were in
100% agreement
Figure 4. a word cloud for The
Analysis of Verbal Behavior (tavb )
depicting the most frequently
reported keywords (n=32)

20 Volume 14 | Numbers 1 & 2 | July 2014 | The Behavior Analyst Today

 THE ZEITGEIST OF BEHAVIOR ANALYTIC RESEARCH IN THE 21ST CENTURY

100 JABA 100 JEAB

90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
% overlap b/w journal keywords

10 10
0 0
JEAB TAVB TBA JABA TAVB TBA
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

100 TAVB 100 TBA

90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
JABA JEAB TBA JABA JEAB TAVB

target journal for keyword comparisons

Figure 5. Grouped bar graphs representing the percentage of keywords in the target journals (depicted on the
x-axis) that overlapped with those of comparison journals (those indicated in the legend). See text for details.

when keywords were not indicated for an article, we calculated Although word clouds are a helpful tool for within-journal analysis,
agreement for only those articles that contained keywords. This supplemental analyses are required for more detailed comparisons
allowed us to arrive at a more conservative agreement estimate. across journals. These terms are also displayed in Table 1.
An agreement was scored when the keywords were transcribed When comparing words in the word clouds of Figures 1 through 4,
(i.e., typed) identically across both raters for the article, issue, several areas of shared interest emerge. For example, the term
and year assigned. Spelling errors or other typing mistakes were matching to sample is featured in the word clouds of both TAVB
counted as disagreements. Percentage agreement was calculated by and JEAB. Similarly, the word choice appears in the word clouds
dividing the number of agreements by the number of agreements of both JABA and JEAB. However, because word clouds are not
plus disagreements and multiplying by 100. Percentage agreement standard scientific displays (i.e., they lack scales or metrics), we
averaged 98.9% (range, 97.3%99.3%). Before completing our supplement Figures 1 through 4 with a quantitative analysis of
analyses, we corrected all errors based on how the keyword(s) the degree of overlap between the journals. These relations are
appeared in the source article. depicted in Figure 5. Review of the indices of overlap indicates that
34.9%, 26.3%, and 36.0% of keywords from JABA overlapped with
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION JEAB, TAVB, and TBA, respectively. Within JEAB, 46.1%, 13.5%, and
Figures 1 through 4 depict the word clouds for TBA, JABA, JEAB, 32.3% of keywords were shared with those in JABA, TAVB, and TBA,
and TAVB, respectively. Each word cloud contains the top 32 most respectively. Keywords in JABA, JEAB, and TBA, respectively, were
frequently reported keywords. An advantage of using a word shared with 64.0%, 47.9%, and 38.3% of those in TAVB. Examining
cloud to display these terms is that it allows straightforward visual the degree to which subfield journals keywords were represented
analysis. For example, readers are able to quickly determine that in ABAIs flagship journal (TBA), we found that JABA and JEAB
the terms functional analysis, problem behavior, and autism were shared nearly equally (41.5% and 45.5%, respectively). TAVB
are the most frequently used keywords in JABA (see Figure 2). was slightly less represented with 20.3% overlap.

The Behavior Analyst Today | Volume 14 | Numbers 1 & 2 | July 2014 21

 REED, DIGENNARO REED, JENKINS, & HIRST

top 5 JABA keywords top 5 JEAB keywords

functional analysis choice JABA

JEAB
autism concurrent schedule TAVB
TBA
problem behavior drug

developmental disabilities discrimination

choice stimulus equivalence

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

top 5 TAVB keywords top 5 TBA keywords

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

verbal behavior B.F. Skinner

autism behavior analysis

mand verbal behavior

tact applied behavior analysis

joint control history

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15

relative proportion of journals keywords
Figure 6. Horizontal stacked histograms depicting the relative proportion of each journals keywords comprised
by the top five keywords from jaba (upper left panel), jeab (upper right panel), tavb (bottom left panel), and tba
(bottom right panel). Shared interests among journals are evidenced by relatively larger and stacked histograms.

Figure 6 contains a more molecular analysis of the top five key-
words for each subfield journal. This analysis allows quantification
of the degree of overlap between each journal for each respective
journals top five frequently used keywords. By examining the
relative proportion of each keywords contribution to the entire
journals keyword set, some speculation about shared interests
between journals can be permitted. For example, the top left panel
of Figure 6 depicts the top five keywords appearing in JABA. The
proportion of JABA keywords of the term choice was .015 and
was the fifth most used keyword in that journal during the time-
span of interest. As this panel also indicates, choice accounts for
a proportion of .032 in JEAB and was the most frequently used
keyword in JEAB as evidenced by the top right panel of Figure 6.
Thus, choice appears to be a relatively strong topic in both JABA
and JEAB, suggesting shared interest in this concept between the
two journals. Figure 6 also highlights shared interest in autism
between JABA and TAVB, as well as verbal behavior between
TAVB and TBA. Such overlap, no matter how small in size, is note-
worthy in demonstrating commonalities across the basic-applied
continuum of our fields science. These mutual interests should
be celebrated as optimistic glimmers of potentiality. By identify-
ing such commonalities, basic and applied researchers alike can
identify areas of scientific translation that will help bridge the gap
between laboratory and practical interests.
The top panel of Figure 7 depicts cumulative frequency of the
three most frequently reported keywords across the years we
reviewed. There is clear differentiation of the top keywords in
JABA. The term functional analysis is used most often followed
by problem behavior and choice. For JEAB, choice shows
a higher rate of use than the second two most frequently used
words, concurrent schedule and drug, which appear at nearly
identical rates. A sharp rate increase is evident for the keyword
verbal behavior in TAVB; the keywords mand and tact
both have similarly slow, yet steady rates. Finally, the bottom
right panel of Figure 7 suggests that the top three keywords in
TBA (B.F. Skinner, behavior analysis, and verbal behavior,
respectively) did not differ in relative rate over the years 2000
to 2009, suggesting no major change in focus in the journal
during that time span.
The cumulative frequency of keywords associated with various
subfields reported in TBA from 2000 to 2009 is depicted in Figure
8. The terms behavior analysis, verbal behavior, and applied
behavior analysis steadily increased across the years we reviewed.
Experimental analysis of behavior increased from 2000 to 2003,
but its rates have not increased since 2005. The keyword clinical
behavior analysis increased only slightly from 2000 to 2008, but
showed a rapid increase in 2009 (due, in part, to a special issue
that was published on this topic; Kanter & Woods, 2009).

22 Volume 14 | Numbers 1 & 2 | July 2014 | The Behavior Analyst Today

 THE ZEITGEIST OF BEHAVIOR ANALYTIC RESEARCH IN THE 21ST CENTURY

124 functional analysis JABA  128 choice JEAB

problem behavior  concurrent schedule
choice  drug
93  96
  

   
62  
 64 
  
    
31    32     
     
   
 
cumulative frequency


    
  

 

 

0 0
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

32 verbal behavior TAVB  25 B.F. Skinner TBA

mand behavior analysis
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

tact verbal behavior

 20 

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

24 
 



 15    
16 



10  
    
 
8     
 
 5  
 
  
0 0  
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
Figure 7. cumulative records for the three most frequently reported keywords jeab , jaba , tavb , and tba .

The findings above provide an optimistic view of the relation
between basic science and applied research in behavior analysis.
However, such numbers may also be deceiving. By including all
keywords in the analysis, even those appearing infrequently within
journals contribute to the overlap metrics. It is possible, therefore,
that the bulk of interest in one journal may not be well represented
in another, despite seemingly high degrees of overlap. For example,
examination of Figure 2 indicates that functional analysis is by
far the most frequent keyword in JABA (occurring 121 times, com-
prising 4.5% of all keywords), suggesting that this term may well
represent the zeitgeist of this journal. Despite the relatively high
degree of overlap between JABA and JEAB, the term functional
analysis never appeared in JEAB. Similarly, verbal behavior is
the clear leading term for TAVB, with 31 occurrences making up
10.6% of this journals total keywords. Although Figure 5 suggests
that TAVBs keywords are most strongly represented in JABA, it is
peculiar that the term verbal behavior accounts for only 0.6%
(n=16) of JABAs total keywords. Because of these analytic issues
cumulative frequency
We must also address our second question: Is argument of a
divide between basic and applied research valid? Using an objec-
tive (i.e., quantitative) analysis of the overlap of keywords in the
flagship journals, our results suggest that areas of mutual interest
exist. These matched interests may serve as translational catalysts,
bridging the basic and applied research domains. Although over-
lap was found among the journals, the zeitgeist within a journal
is not necessarily shared between journals. These data support
the notion that the different subfields within behavior analysis
represent different interests and rightfully have distinct journals.
In one sense, these data indicate the four journals we reviewed
exist independently and serve very different purposes for the
fieldthis could be viewed as a success. In another sense, there
subfields in tba
25 applied behavior analysis
behavior analysis
clinical behavior analysis

related to the total overlap metric, we find the use of the word cloud 20 experimental analysis of behavior   
to be of value when quickly identifying areas of shared zeitgeists. verbal behavior


15     
Summary  
  

Let us return to one of our original questions: Using the word 10  

 
    

cloud analysis, what is the zeitgeist of behavior analytic research   
 
5  

in the 21st century? The displays in Figures 1 through 4 convey a 
 
 
       
large amount of information in an easy-to-read format allowing 0 

readers to quickly identify the current topics of interest. When this 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
information is combined with the cumulative records (Figures 5
and 6), it is apparent that the most frequently studied topics (indi- year
cated by keywords depicted in the word clouds) have consistently
Figure 8. cumulative frequency of subfield keyword use
remained areas of focus across the first decade of the 21st century. in the Behavior Analyst from 2000 to 2009.

The Behavior Analyst Today | Volume 14 | Numbers 1 & 2 | July 2014 23

 REED, DIGENNARO REED, JENKINS, & HIRST

remains room for further collaboration to promote bidirectional Critchfield (2011a, 2011b) and Mace (1994) for general guidance
translational programs (i.e., practical interests could spawn labo- on how translational research would aid both wings of our science.
ratory simulations, while the emerging EAB findings could spark Additionally, we believe that journals should explicitly encourage
applied utility). The disparities between the journals may point translational topics (something that JEAB has recently endorsed;
out different research agendas between the subfields and may be Mazur, 2010) and promote the citation of both basic and applied
representative of a growing divide in interests. We discuss this studies in their accepted manuscripts whenever possible.
potential divide in greater detail below.
Our analyses are complicated by several significant limitations. Recommendations regarding keywords
First, we do not have standards regarding what percent overlap is Our analytic procedures identified numerous limitations regarding
sufficient to claim the existence of a shared research topic. Perhaps
the comparisons of keywords across journals. These limitations
what we view as optimistic others may interpret as disappoint- speak to a broader issue of disparate practices in keyword use
ingly low (or vice versa). Second, terminological shifts may have across journals that could influence future keyword reviews, or
occurred without our knowledge, thus impacting interpretation more importantly, the identification of these journals articles in
of these findings across the years we reviewed. For example, some database searches. We recommend that journal editors consider
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

behavior analysts have argued that the term experimental anal- standardizing the specification and use of keywords across our
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

ysis of behavior has been replaced with the more general term flagship journals. Moreover, editors could require that keywords
behavior analysis (Vargas, 2009), possibly explaining why the representing larger concepts (e.g., problem behavior) as well as
term has seen a decrease in use. The extent to which similar shifts more specific terms (e.g., self-injury) are listed in a particular se-
may have impacted use of other keywords is unknown. Finally, quence (similar to JEABs requirements). More stringent keyword
the present analysis is but one objective analytic technique and selection procedures should be adopted and enforced as well. For
other techniques might offer different information. Further em- example, self-injury and self-injurious behavior were listed
pirical introspection from our field is thus necessary to objectively
as unique keywords in JABA as were mands and manding in
examine whether such a basic-applied divide is emerging. Future TAVB; however, in a quick keyword database search we discovered
research could expand the analysis to incorporate journals outside that relevant articles were not consistently identified (possibly
of those in this study to better reflect the wider dissemination of due to these discrepancies). These issues may present greater
behavior analytic research. problems than we even anticipate for readers of these journals
regardless of their reason for completing keyword searches. Re-
The potential divide between eab and aba searchers and students who do not access relevant research via
Three decades ago, Poling and colleagues (1981) raised the question electronic keyword searches might be missing important details
of whether a schism between EAB and ABA was real, and if so, when designing a study. Practitioners designing evidence-based
who might care. Their survey results suggested that a schism was or empirically-supported interventions could delay or, even worse,
verbally reported by JABA and JEAB editorial staff, and that these prevent important treatment effects if their literature searches do
staff cared about what this schism meant for the sustainability of not yield consistently relevant articles. Finally, culturomic and
the field. Citation analyses have empirically documented such a search term research and analyses, such as the one we present in
schism (see Perone, 1985; Critchfield, 2002; Critchfield & Reed, this paper, are becoming increasingly used to detect trends and
2004) in sources of scholarly influence. Our approach to objectively assess zeitgeist and/or cultural evolution in both the humanities
describing the cultures of EAB and ABA does not provide evidence and social sciences. Our field would benefit from periodic analysis
for or against a growing divide. Although potential solutions to of our own behavior, as represented through keyword use in our
bridging research between EAB and ABA are outside the scope flagship journals. A standardized approach to specifying keywords
of our analysis, interested readers are encouraged to consult would aid future analysis.

24 Volume 14 | Numbers 1 & 2 | July 2014 | The Behavior Analyst Today


REFERENCES
Bentley, R.A. & Ormerod, P. (2010). A rapid method for assessing social
versus independent interest in health issues: A case study of bird
flu and swine flu. Social Science & Medicine, 7, 482485.
Carr, J.E., & Britton, L.N. (2003). Citation trends of applied journals
in behavioral psychology: 19812000. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 36, 113117.
Chew, C., & Eysenbach, G. (2010). Pandemics in the age of Twitter:
Content analysis of tweets during the 2009 H1N1 outbreak. PLoS ONE,
5(11), e14118. Retrieved from http://www.plosone.org.
Critchfield, T.S. (2002). Evaluating the function of applied behavior
analysis: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
35, 423426.
Critchfield, T.S. (2011a). Translational contributions of the experimental
analysis of behavior. The Behavior Analyst, 34, 317.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Critchfield, T.S. (2011b). To a young basic scientist, about to embark on a
program of translational research. The Behavior Analyst, 34, 133148.
Critchfield, T.S., & Reed, D.D. (2004). Conduits of translation in be-
havior-science bridge research. In J.E. Burgos, & E. Ribes (Eds.).
Theory, basic and applied research, and technological applications in
behavior science: Conceptual and methodological issues (pp. 4584).
Guadalajara, Mexico: University of Guadalajara Press.
Cummings, E.J. (2009). Trends in mental health googling. Psychiatric
Bulletin, 33, 437.
Elliott, A.J., Kineta, M., R., Fuqua, R.W., Ehrhardt, K., & Poling, A. (2005).
Self-and cross-citations in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
and the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior: 19932003.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 559563.
Friman, P.C. (2010). Come on in, the water is fine: Achieving mainstream
relevance through integration with primary medical care. The Behavior
Analyst, 33, 1936.
Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation.
Science, 178, 471479.
Guo, S., Zhang, G., & Zhai, R. (2010). A potential way of enquiry into
human curiosity. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3),
E48-E52.
Kanter, J.W. & Woods, D.W. (2009). [Special section]. The Behavior
Analyst, 32, 1184.
Laties, V.G., & Mace, F.C. (1993). Taking stock: The first 25 years of the
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 26, 513525.
The Behavior Analyst Today | Volume 14 | Numbers 1 & 2 | July 2014
THE ZEITGEIST OF BEHAVIOR ANALYTIC RESEARCH IN THE 21ST CENTURY
Mace, F.C. (1994). Basic research needed for stimulating the develop-
ment of behavioral technologies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis
of Behavior, 61, 529550.
Mace, F.C., & Critchfield, T.S. (2010). Translational research in behavior
analysis: Historical traditions and imperative for the future. Journal
of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 93, 293312.
Mazur, J.E. (2010). Editorial: Translational research in JEAB. Journal of
the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 93, 291292.
Michel, J.B., Shen, Y.K., Aiden, A.P., Veres, A., Gray, M.K., The Google
Books Team, Aiden, E.L. (2011). Quantitative analysis of culture
using millions of digitized books. Science, 331, 176182.
Murthy, D. (2011). Twitter: Microphone for the masses? Media, Culture
& Society, 33, 779789.
Perone, M. (1985). On the impact of human operant research: Asym-
metrical patterns of cross-citation between human and nonhuman
research. The Behavior Analyst, 8, 185189.
Poling, A. (2010). Looking to the future: Will behavior analysis survive
and prosper? The Behavior Analyst, 33, 617.
Poling, A., Alling, K., & Fuqua, R.W. (1994). Self- and cross-citations
in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis and the Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior: 19831992. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 27, 729731.
Poling, A., Picker, M., Grossett, D., Hall-Johnson, E., & Holbrook, M.
(1981). The schism between experimental and applied behavior
analysis: Is it real and who cares? The Behavior Analyst, 4, 93102.
Preparation of manuscripts. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 85, 143146. Rutherford, A. (2009). Beyond the box: B.F.
Skinners technology of behavior from laboratory to life, 1950s-1970s.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Schlinger, H.D. (Ed.). (2010).The future of behavior analysis [Special
section]. The Behavior Analyst, 33, 145.
Signorini, A., Segre, A.M., & Polgreen, P.M. (2011). The use of Twitter to
track levels of disease activity and public concern in the U.S. during
the influenza A H1N1 pandemic. PLoS ONE, 6(5), e19467. Retrieved
from http://www.plosone.org.
Skinner, B.F. (1948). Walden two. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing
Company.
Vargas, J.S. (2009). Behavior analysis for effective teaching. New York,
NY: Routledge.
25