Affectively-Align & Culturally Aware ABA Notebook

As future behavior analysts and parents of children with ASD and other developmental disabilities we often hear that the word “subject” is dehumanizing—when describing individual in experimental research—in my opinion the term is a practical and neutral descriptor that accurately reflects the role of individuals whose behavior is being studied. Unlike “participant”, which implies an active engagement, “subject” clearly delineates the researcher-subject dynamic, ensuring clarity in scientific communication. This distinction is crucial for maintaining methodological rigor, as it avoids conflating voluntary participation with the controlled conditions necessary for valid results. Sidman (2002) argues that labeling only the studied individuals as “participants” risk misinterpreting the scientific process, as experimenters are equally engaged in the study. Thus, “subject” preserves the objectivity of research without inherently dehumanizing individuals.

Critics of the term “subject” often claim it diminishes the humanity of those involved, but this perspective conflates terminology with treatment. Dehumanization arises from unethical practices, not neutral labels. Historically, ethical guidelines—such as informed consent and institutional review—ensure respect for individuals regardless of terminology. The focus should remain on ethical conduct rather than semantic debates. As Sidman (2002) notes, insisting on”participant” risks oversimplifying the researcher’s role, inadvertently portraying scientists as detached operators rather than active contributors to the scientific process.

Ultimately, the term “subject” remains a functional and precise choice in experimental contexts. While “participant” may suit certain collaborative studies, “subject” better captures the controlled nature of traditional experiments. The key is to uphold ethical standards, ensuring individuals are treated with dignity regardless of labels. Sidman’s critique reminds us that scientific integrity depends on accurate language, not performative terminology shifts.

*** I’m glad that my course: ABA Measurement and Experimental Design include Sidman’s article as a coursework reading assignment since I feel like I have to tippy-toe with word use and question myself what could be the current politically correct term of such phrase or word!

Reference:

Sidman, M. (2002). The distinction between “subjects” and “participants”. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 77(1), 9.