Recombinative Generalization of Tacts Through Matrix Training with Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Foss (Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76, 450–459, 1968a; Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77, 341–344, 1968b) compared overlap and non-overlap instruction to promote recombinative response generalization using a matrix training procedure. In the present study, we used a similar set of procedures to teach tacting of kitchen items and prepositions (i.e., relational autoclitics) to three females ages 13–20, diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. We taught some kitchen items/prepositions as tacts (e.g., “the strainer is to the right of the box”) according to a non-overlap instructional sequence. Subsequently, we taught more combinations in an overlap instructional sequence. Each training procedure was followed by probes of untrained relations. Two participants demonstrated recombinative generalization of untrained combinations following the first non-overlap phase, while the third participant demonstrated some response generalization of untrained relations after a few additional training sequences. All three participants demonstrated generalized tacting of object components while two participants showed generalized tacting of preposition components.     

Evaluating the Emergence of Reverse Intraverbals in Children with Autism

Verbal behavior plays a fundamental role in the development of complex social and communication skills. Many children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder exhibit profound deficiencies in intraverbal repertoires and the development of social relationships. Recent studies that investigated the effects of intraverbal training on the emergence of reverse intraverbals produced mixed results (e.g., Perez-Gonzalez et al., Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 40:697–701, 2007)). In the current study, a multiple-probe design across four participants with autism was used to evaluate the effects of intraverbal training on the emergence of reverse intraverbals. Intraverbal training consisted of multiple exemplars taught concurrently, bidirectional stimulus-response teaching formats, general case analysis, reinforcement, and a constant prompt delay (CPD) procedure. Participants were trained on intraverbal targets and probes were conducted to assess emergence of untaught reverse intraverbals. Three participants demonstrated the emergence of reverse intraverbals as a result of the intraverbal training procedures. Social validity and maintenance of target responses and emergent reverse intraverbals were assessed.     

Thirty Points About Motivation From Skinner’s Book Verbal Behavior

Skinner discussed the topic of motivation in every chapter of the book Verbal Behavior (1957), usually with his preferred terminology of “deprivation, satiation, and aversive stimulation.” In the current paper, direct quotations are used to systematically take the reader through 30 separate points made by Skinner in Verbal Behavior that collectively provide a comprehensive analysis of his position regarding the role of motivation in behavior analysis. In addition, various refinements and extensions of Skinner''s analysis by Jack Michael and colleagues (Laraway, Snycerski, Michael, & Poling, 2003; Michael, 1982, 1988, 1993, 2000, 2004, 2007) are incorporated, along with suggestions for research and applications for several of the points.     

An Introduction to Joint Control

Lowenkron and colleagues (Lowenkron, 1984; 1991; 1998; 2006; Lowenkron and Colvin, 1992) describe a model that explains complex behavior using only well-established behavioral principles, concepts and terms. The model, called joint control, is especially useful for understanding complex and delayed discriminations within a purely behavioral framework and with no appeal to hypothetical concepts or structures. In it the listener is an active behaver rather than a processor of information. In fact, on this account the listener becomes a speaker. Several examples of the relevance of this approach to the explanation of complex behavior are provided, including cases of stimulus selection, conditional discrimination, and generalized identity matching.     

Establishing Concurrent Mands for Items and Mands for Information about Location in Children with Autism

This study replicated and extended the methodology used in Howlett et al. (Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 943–947 2011) to bring the mands “Where’s (item)?” and “I want (item)” under appropriate antecedent control in two boys diagnosed with autism. Trials were alternated in which items were present, missing, and within view (but inaccessible) and missing and out of view. To program for generalization, fifteen items, multiple trainers, and multiple settings were used during teaching. For both participants, manding generalized to novel items, instructors, settings, and situations and maintained after 2 weeks following teaching. Results of the social validity assessment indicated that school staff found the procedures highly acceptable.     

The Veils of Clio: Dimensions of a Behavioral Narratology

This paper outlines a behavior-analysis approach to the field of narratology, the study of the narrative or story, with emphasis on nonfiction stories and the processes by which such stories distort the world they describe. Stories are described in terms of (a) a behavior-analysis adaptation of Todorov''s (1977) analysis of the plots of stories in terms of states of equilibrium/disequilibrium and (b) Grant''s (2005) analysis of the structure of stories in terms of establishing operations and escape contingencies. These two sets of concepts are applied to understanding how and why stories lead to distortions of the events they report.     

Increasing Vocal Variability in Children with Autism Using a Lag Schedule of Reinforcement

Variability has been demonstrated to be an operant dimension of behavior (Neuringer, 2002; Page & Neuringer, 1985). Recently, lag schedules have been used to demonstrate operant variability of verbal behavior in persons with a diagnosis of autism (e.g., Lee, McComas, & Jawor, 2002). The current study evaluated the effects of a Lag 1 schedule on the vocal variability of 2 nonverbal children with a diagnosis of autism. Results showed systematic increases in variability during the Lag 1 schedule. Implications of lag schedules for speech and language training are discussed.     

Effects of a Differential Observing Response on Intraverbal Performance of Preschool Children: A Preliminary Investigation

Axe (2008) speculated that some instances of intraverbal responding might be associated with limited or delayed acquisition because they require discrimination of multiple components of verbal stimuli. Past studies suggest that acquisition of responses under control of complex, multicomponent antecedent stimuli (e.g., conditional or compound stimulus control) can be facilitated with the introduction of a differential observing response (DOR; Dube & McIlvane, 1999; Gutowski, Geren, Stromer, & Mackay, 1995). The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effects of a DOR (i.e., repeating the question) on intraverbal responding with six neurotypical preschool children. Findings included that (a) accuracy of intraverbal performance increased when the experimenter prompted a DOR; (b) 1 of 6 participants overtly emitted the DOR for a second relation in the absence of prompts, which was correlated with increased accuracy; and (c) following mastery, response accuracy was variable for 3 participants. Based on these findings, prompted DORs may offer an effective, if temporary, aid to intraverbal instruction for neurotypical preschool children.     

The Effects of Contingent Caregiver Imitation of Infant Vocalizations: a Comparison of Multiple Caregivers

The present study replicated and extended the Pelaez et al. (Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 44:33–40, 2011) study, which examined the reinforcing effects of mothers’ contingent imitation of their infants’ vocalizations. Three infants aged 7–12 months who could vocalize sounds but not words participated with two caregivers for each infant (i.e., triads). During the intervention phase, the caregivers were asked to immediately imitate all vocalizations emitted by the child for a 3-min period. During the yoked control phase, the caregivers listened to an audio recording from the preceding condition and provided vocalizations non-contingently on the infants’ responses. The procedures yielded different results across participants; one infant emitted a higher frequency of vocalizations during the contingent imitation phases over the control phases, and the other two infants showed higher rates of responding during the control phases. However, all infants emitted more imitative return vocalizations during contingent reinforcement conditions compared with the yoked control condition.     

The effects of tact training on stereotypic vocalizations in children with autism

This study was a systematic extension of Karmali, Greer, Nuzzulo-Gomez, Ross, and Rivera-Valdes (2005) and Ahearn, Clark, MacDonald, and Chung (2007). We investigated the effects of a tact correction procedure on stereotypic vocalizations in 4 children diagnosed with autism who ranged in age from 6 to 16 years. Participants had limited vocal verbal repertoires and were primarily dependent on prompts for the emission of appropriate vocalizations. A multiple-baseline design across participants was used. Data were collected on instances of stereotypic vocalizations and independent tacts during baseline conditions and on instances of stereotypic vocalizations, independent tacts, and echoic-tacts during intervention. Procedural integrity and social validity data were also obtained. The results indicated a decrease in stereotypic vocalizations for 3 of the 4 participants and a slight increase in appropriate vocal verbal behavior (i.e., tacting) for all participants. The study provides support for the use of tact correction procedures to decrease stereotypic vocalizations and increase appropriate vocalizations in children with autism.     

A Behavioral Conceptualization of Aphasia

Aphasia is an acquired language impairment that affects over 1 million individuals, the majority of whom are over age 65 (Groher, 1989). This disorder has typically been conceptualized within a cognitive neuroscience framework, but a behavioral interpretation of aphasia is also possible. Skinner''s (1957) analysis of verbal behavior proposes a framework of verbal operants that can be integrated with the work of Sidman (1971) and Haughton (1980) to describe the language difficulties individuals with aphasia experience. Using this synthesis of models, we propose a new taxonomy of aphasia based on the observed deficit relations. Assessment and treatment implications are also discussed.     

A Comparison of Topography-based and Selection-based Verbal Behavior in Typically Developed Children and Developmentally Disabled Persons with Autism

This study is a replication of Sundberg and Sundberg (1990) that compared topography-based verbal behavior with selection-based verbal behavior in terms of acquisition, accuracy, and testing for the emergence of a new verbal relation. Participants were three typical children and three developmentally disabled persons with autism. The study sought to determine which paradigm (topography-based or selection-based) resulted in more rapid acquisition of tacts and intraverbals, which was associated with the fewest errors, and which paradigm resulted in the emergence of the highest number of new verbal relations. The results of the study showed that the six participants performed quite differently from one another. Most importantly, the results from the person with autism contradicted previous findings favoring selection-based verbal behavior over topography-based approaches for teaching verbal behavior to low-functioning individuals.     

An Underdiscussed Aspect of Chomsky (1959)

Chomsky''s (1959) review of Skinner''s (1957) Verbal Behavior has been influential and attributed with a role in the cognitive revolution. However, while counter reviews from within behavior analysis have noted that Chomsky misunderstood the subject matter, certain aspects of his scholarship have been underdiscussed. This includes several instances where Chomsky misquotes Skinner or takes his quotes out of context. Similar to the findings of Sokal (1996a, 1996b), it is speculated that the problems with Chomsky were overlooked by cognitive psychologists because his general outlook was accepted. Implications for the editorial review process are discussed.

Transgressing disciplinary boundaries . . . [is] a subversive undertaking since it is likely to violate the sanctuaries of accepted ways of perceiving. Among the most fortified boundaries have been those between the natural sciences and the humanities.—Greenberg (1990, p. 1), as quoted in Sokal (1996a)Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts.—attributed to Bernhard Mannes Baruch (Montapert, 1964, p. 145)

Areas of study are sometimes profoundly affected by people outside them. For example, the linguist Noam Chomsky is familiar to many psychologists for his influence in the cognitive revolution, the major shift in the orientation of American psychology from behavioral to cognitive in the 1960s and 1970s (e.g., Auyang, 2000, p. 105; Erneling, 1997; Hunt, 1982, p. 217; Kosslyn & Rosenberg, 2001, p. 238). Some have even suggested that Chomsky''s (1959) review of B. F. Skinner''s (1957) Verbal Behavior, the latter''s theoretical account of how language can be explained in behavioral terms, was responsible for initiating the cognitive revolution (e.g., Bialystock, 1997; Harnish, 2002, p. 44).When Chomsky set out to write his review, he faced a daunting task. While apparently well read in certain areas such as political theory, there is little to indicate he had any previous exposure to psychology except for psychoanalysis (Barsky, 1997) and through linguists who have drawn upon psychology, such as Bloomfield (1933). Psychology in general in the early and mid-20th century was broad and diverse (e.g., Heidbreder, 1933; Hilgard & Bower, 1966), and so too was behavioral psychology. At that time “behaviorism” was used to refer a variety of behavior-oriented work, such as the strict methodological behaviorism of John B. Watson (e.g., Watson, 1913, 1924), the mathematical modeling with intervening variables of Clark L. Hull''s school (e.g., Hull, 1943, 1951, 1952), and the eclectic, molar, purposive behaviorism of Edward C. Tolman (e.g., Tolman, 1922, 1932, 1948), each with its own assumptions and terminologies. Skinner''s approach, radical behaviorism, differed from all of them in that he recognized the fundamental respondent-operant distinction (Skinner, 1935, 1937, 1938, p. 61ff., 1953, pp. 45–90), accepted the reality of private events, and rejected purely hypothetical mental constructs (Skinner, 1945). Verbal Behavior was very specifically based on Skinner''s approach, and any reviewer would have to understand this to do the job properly.Behavior analysts’ responses to Chomsky''s (1959) review of Verbal Behavior have not been positive (e.g., MacCorquodale, 1970; McLeish & Martin, 1975; Richelle, 1976); their counter reviews generally have noted that Chomsky fundamentally misunderstood the subject matter and emphasized major points where he differed from Skinner. The existing counter reviews, however, do not exhaust the problems with Chomsky. An especially important yet underdiscussed problem of Chomsky is the poor quality of his scholarship, which, to this author''s best knowledge, has not been previously addressed. The purpose of this paper is to address this issue and discuss its implications for future literature reviews.

Chomsky''s Review of Skinner

As noted above, Chomsky''s apparent understanding of radical behaviorism was poor, and at numerous points he makes claims not supported by the existing literature. Some parts of his review, such as citing a supporting claim that stimuli cannot be manipulated (Chomsky, 1959, p. 31, footnote 5) demonstrate severe problems with his understanding of the subject matter, and his handling of the most basic terms was so poor that Richelle (1976) said his “misunderstanding . . . would prompt most examination graders to read no further.”Many serious problems in this area have already been discussed by the above-mentioned counter reviewers; these include instances where Chomsky misattributed views to Skinner that clearly belong to others. For example, Chomsky (1959, p. 28) in describing response strength claimed: “The strength of an operant is defined by Skinner in terms of the rate of response during extinction. . . .” Skinner never claimed this, but rather defined it as the probability a response will occur under certain circumstances (Skinner, 1957, p. 22). MacCorquodale (1970) noted that rate of response during extinction was actually Hull''s definition of probability (Hull, 1943, pp. 260–262), and claiming that Skinner accepted this definition given his criticism of Hull''s work (Skinner, 1944) would be difficult to justify. Several other of Chomsky''s errors may have resulted from his failing to distinguish Skinner''s views from those of others. For example, Chomsky claimed that Skinner said “that children can learn language only through ‘meticulous care’ on the part of adults who shape their verbal repertoire through careful differential reinforcement” (Chomsky, p. 42) and that it is part of “the doctrine of Skinner and others that slow and careful shaping of verbal behavior through differential reinforcement is an absolute necessity” (op. cit., p. 42). Aside from the fact that other people''s doctrines are irrelevant here, nowhere does Skinner make this claim. Chomsky may have actually been reacting to Miller and Dollard (1941, p. 82), who in a discussion on language acquisition wrote: “The child is given meticulous training in connecting words to objects and connecting acts to words.” Skinner (1957), however, says almost nothing about language acquisition and certainly did not describe it as arising from a laborious and intentional shaping procedure. Chomsky (pp. 35, 52), perhaps supposing all responses would act like respondents, also wrongly indicated that a “strong” (operant) verbal response should, according to Skinner, necessarily be a high-pitched scream. However, as Skinner (1950, p. 196) noted,

In the sort of behavior adapted to the Pavlovian experiment (respondent behavior) there may be a progressive increase in the magnitude of response during learning. But we do not shout our responses louder and louder as we learn verbal material, nor does a rat press a lever harder and harder as conditioning proceeds. In operant behavior the energy or magnitude of response changes significantly only when some arbitrary value is differentially reinforced—when such a change is what is learned.

Not all of Chomsky''s errors involved confounding views or pure misunderstandings. There are several instances in Chomsky (1959) where Skinner is quoted out of context or the quote is incorrect such that Skinner''s views are not accurately portrayed. A few examples follow.

1. The above-mentioned false definition of response strength was again made when Chomsky (1959, p. 34) claimed that “Skinner has argued that this [rate of emission during extinction] is ‘the only datum that varies significantly and in the expected direction under conditions which are relevant to the “learning process.” The actual quote from Skinner (1950, p. 198) began with “Rate of responding appears to be the only datum which [sic] varies significantly. . . .” Extinction was not mentioned at all. Furthermore, this occurred in a discussion of learning theories, far removed from anything Chomsky discussed.
2. Chomsky (1959, p. 34) claimed that Skinner said that “the frequency of the response may be ‘primarily attributable to the frequency of occurrence of controlling variables’ . . . .” The actual sentence in Skinner (1957, p. 27) was “Nor can we be sure that frequency is not primarily attributable to the frequency of occurrence of controlling variables.” This occurred in a discussion of factors affecting frequency, during which Skinner emphasized that, contrary to the practice of “word counts” used in formal analyses of language, “it is also important to know the prevailing conditions,” that is, the circumstances under which they occur. Skinner was expressing a possibility or an uncertainty, which Chomsky failed to acknowledge.
3. Chomsky (1959, p. 34, footnote 9) quoted from Skinner (1950, p. 199) regarding allegedly using “the notion of probability in analyzing or formulating instances of even types of behavior which are not susceptible to this analysis.” Chomsky used this quote in a discussion in which he attacked Skinner''s usage of probability (and failed; see MacCorquodale, 1970). However, the passage from Skinner occurred at the end of a paragraph discussing complex activities that, as a whole, may never be repeated by the individual. In the same paragraph, Skinner (p. 199) said,

They are not simple unitary events lending themselves to prediction as such. If we are to predict marriage, success, accident, and so on, in anything more than statistical terms, we must deal with the smaller units of behavior which lead to and compose these unitary episodes. If the units appear in repeatable form, the present analysis may be applied.

Chomsky, however, attempted to apply this analysis to language behaviors, which typically involve a large number of units that may occur very frequently; thus the limitations that may apply to predicting marriage, success, accident, and so on as wholes are irrelevant to Skinner''s program. Chomsky acknowledged none of this.4. Chomsky (1959, p. 35, footnote 10), in discussing pitch, quoted Skinner as saying “Fortunately, ‘In English this presents no great difficulty’ since, for example, ‘relative pitch levels . . . are not . . . important,’” the “this” apparently referring to that pitch, among things, has linguistic functions (pp. 34–35). He further indicated (op. cit.): “No reference is made to the numerous studies of the function of relative pitch levels and other intonational features in English.” The implication is that Skinner ignored the importance of pitch and intonation in actual speech. But what Skinner (1957, p. 25) actually wrote was:

In English, this [energy level, speed of response, and even repetition entering into the construction of different forms of response] presents no great difficulty. Absolute levels of pitch and intensity are not “distinctive,” nor are relative pitch levels important. Changes in pitch, however, distinguish different types of utterance.

Skinner then discussed the functions of pitch in English. While Skinner and Chomsky may have disagreed about their exact functions, it is clear that Skinner did not contend that intonation or pitch in English were completely “unimportant” as Chomsky implied.5. Chomsky (1959, p. 52, footnote 42) quipped, “Similarly, ‘the universality of a literary work refers to the number of potential readers inclined to say the same thing’ (. . . i.e., the most ‘universal’ work is a dictionary of clichés and greetings).” However, the paragraph in Skinner (1957, pp. 274–275) this quote was taken from begins:

A reader seeks out other works of a given writer or other literature of a given type because of the reinforcement he has received. The reinforcement depends upon his own verbal behavior. A thematic correspondence between a reader and a literary work is likely to involve a matching of variables in the fields of motivation and emotion. The universality of a literary work refers to the number of potential readers inclined to say the same thing, at least in some measure. The success of a book is some indication of the number of people who possess a given kind of verbal behavior in strength.

In other words, a work has “universality” when readers would be likely to say something similar in content to the work, not specific utterances.6. Chomsky (1959, p. 53) claimed that “Skinner considers a sentence to be a set of key responses (nouns, verbs, adjectives) on a skeletal frame” and then proceeded to criticize Skinner as if this was his position. However, the actual quote was: “Others [other sentences] are nearly complete skeletal ‘frames’ upon which an exceptional response or two may be hung” (Skinner, 1957, p. 346), and this was not presented as the sole possibility. Rather, it was part of a much longer chapter (pp. 344–367) in which Skinner discussed how verbal responses are combined. Much of this involves a class of responses called autoclitics (p. 311ff.), which are verbal operants whose occurrence depends in part on the occurrence of other verbal operants; in Skinner''s hypothesis, grammar results from an interaction of autoclitics with other verbal operants. For example, when one is confronted by the appropriate stimulating conditions (seeing a hungry man) one would not only emit such responses as hungry and man, but also autoclitics related to the specificity of the situation (the) and occurrence (is) to produce a longer, structured utterance (The man is hungry; Skinner, p. 345). Not all sentences are necessarily created this way, and in the quote Chomsky cites, Skinner does indicate some may be partially or completely preformed; however, he certainly did not claim all were.     

Stimulus-Stimulus Pairing of Vocalizations: A Systematic Replication

The current study replicated an enhanced stimulus-stimulus pairing (SSP) procedure used by Esch et al. (Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 42: 42–225, 2009) for increasing vocalizations in children with autism. The enhanced SSP procedure consisted of pairing target vocalizations with high-preference items, interspersed target and nontarget trials, an observing response, and the presentation of the vocalizations in “motherese” speech. Results showed substantial increases in target vocalizations above baseline levels and above nontarget vocalizations for two of three participants.     

Generalization of Relational Matching to Sample in Children: A Direct Replication

The ability of preschool age children to perform generalized relational matching to sample tasks with and without an overt mediating stimulus was examined. This experiment was a direct replication of a study by Lowenkron (1984) and examined a behavioral model relevant to complex human behavior that he later came to call joint control. Children were trained to code two-dimensional stimuli with the help of a handheld mediating stimulus. They were later tested for generalization of relational matching to sample with and without the mediating stimulus. Results indicated high levels of generalized matching to sample with the mediating stimulus and lower levels without. Findings also indicated that generalization was somewhat stronger with symmetrical shapes than with asymmetrical. Results are discussed in terms of a radical behavioral interpretation of complex human behavior.     

Comparing Acquisition of Exchange-Based and Signed Mands With Children With Autism

Therapists and educators frequently teach alternative-communication systems, such as picture exchanges or manual signs, to individuals with developmental disabilities who present with expressive language deficits. Michael (1985) recommended a taxonomy for alternative communication systems that differentiated between selection-based systems in which each response is topographically identical (e.g., card selection and exchange systems) and topography-based systems in which each response is topographically distinct (e.g., signed language). We compared the efficiency of training picture exchanges and signs with 3 participants who presented with severe language deficits; all participants acquired the picture-exchange responses more readily.     

Echoic and Self-Echoic Responses in Children

Eleven typically developing children were assessed on the accuracy of prompted self-echoic responses following a 5-s delay from their initial echoic response, replicating procedures in Esch, Esch, McCart, and Petursdottir (2010) that compared discrepancies between echoic and self-echoic scores of autistic and typically developing children following a 2-s delay. We compared the two studies in terms of age, level tested, and echoic/self-echoic discrepancy scores. Age and test level differences were found to be statistically significant. Results are discussed in terms of discrepant self-echoic performance and self-echoic rehearsal as it relates to participant age, test level, motivating variables, and the development of complex behavior.     

Evaluating Stimulus-Stimulus Pairing and Direct Reinforcement in the Establishment of an Echoic Repertoire of Children Diagnosed with Autism

Many children with autism do not imitate adult vocalizations, an important skill in learning to talk. Pairing adult vocalizations with preferred stimuli has been shown to increase free-operant vocalizations but effects are temporary; thus, direct reinforcement may be necessary to establish durable vocal behaviors. In Experiment 1, directly reinforced echoic responses did not increase following stimulus-stimulus pairings in three children with autism. Similarly, pairings did not increase free-operant vocalizations in Experiment 2, a replication of Miguel et al. (2002). Experiment 3 demonstrated that shaping increased vowel frequency for one participant. Results suggest that variables are yet to be delineated that influence effectiveness of a stimulus-stimulus pairing procedure on vocalization frequency and acquisition of a verbal operant following such pairings.