Labeling bias and attitudes toward behavior modification revisited

Abstract

Twenty-three years ago, Woolfolk, Woolfolk and Wilson (1977, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 184–191) described a study about labeling bias and attitudes toward behavior modification. When videotaped depictions of behavior modification procedures were described as “humanistic education”, college students rated them more favorably than when the same procedures were called “behavior modification”. One implication of this study is that behavioral terminology may be perceived as dehumanizing by potential consumers, leading to lower acceptance of the approach regardless of its effectiveness. With lower acceptance comes the risk of under utilization. More than two decades have passed since the Woolfolk et al. study was published so we felt the time was right to repeat the experiment with a new generation of students. In our study, two groups of college undergraduates ( N=144) gave their opinions about a 10 minute videotape that showed a therapist working with an autistic child. The therapist used behavior modification procedures to treat the child, except in one case the procedures were described as “humanistic educative therapy”, and in the other as “behavior modification”. An appropriate rationale was provided for each of the two conditions. Unlike Woolfolk et al., we found no differences in how the two depictions were evaluated. In both cases, they were perceived favorably regardless of what they were called, as were the personal qualities of the therapist. These results suggest that negative attitudes toward behavior modification have weakened over the last two decades, and there is wider pubic acceptance of behavioral treatments now than there was then. Implications of the study are briefly discussed.