Where׳s the beef?: Reply to Kanter, Holman, and Wilson

• We respond to Kanter, Holman, and Wilson׳s (2014) critique of our behavior analytic interpretation of alexithymia.
• We discuss the role of behavior–behavior relations in contextual behavior science.
• We comment on the potential utility of middle-level terms.

This is a brief reply to Kanter, Holman, and Wilson׳s (2014) critique of our analysis of alexythimia, a behavioral deficit. First, we clarify the purpose of our original article. We also present a case for why analyses such as ours, which consider multiple functions of complex verbal behavior in intimate relationships (i.e., establishing operations, discriminative stimuli, response repertoires, and reinforcing functions), falls under the umbrella of contextual behavioral science. We also discuss some broader issues raised by Kanter and colleagues, such as private events, the need for middle-level terms and the role of behavior–behavior relations in contextual behavioral science.