The Analysis of Correspondence Training as a Chain Reinforceable at Any Point

Paniagua, Freddy A.; Baer, Donald M.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1982.tb03454.x

Cited by 29 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The first is to determine the conditions required for developing correspondence between verbal and nonverbal behavior. The second is to Regarding the first issue, researchers (e.g., Israel & Brown, 1977;Israel & O'Leary, 1973) have emphasized reinforcement of a particular verbal/ nonverbal sequence as the key variable in the development of correspondence (Paniagua & Baer, 1982). In this study, however, individuals in the reinforcement group apparently developed generalized correspondence yet were never reinforced for the overt sequence of saying then doing used in the correspondence training group and in other related studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…Whereas logic would dictate the necessity of some relevant verbal behavior by the subject to develop correspondence, apparently it need not be overt or necessarily prompted by the experimenter. Furthermore, Paniagua and Baer (1982) presented evidence that correspondence is a chain of behaviors that can be developed by presenting reinforcement at various points along the sequence, not only at the end of the sequence. Clearly, these data indicate that the process of developing correspondence is more complex than simply reinforcing a verbal/ nonverbal sequence of behaviors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Correspondence Training: An Example of Rule‐governed Behavior?

Deacon¹,

Konarski

1987

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two groups of six mentally retarded adults were exposed to either a "say/do" correspondence training program or a "do only" reinforcement procedure to evaluate the suggestion of Rogers-Warren and Baer (1976) that reinforcement of the nonverbal target behavior in the absence of the relevant verbal behavior may account for the behavior changes seen in correspondence training. The participants worked in an experimental setting on a variety of manipulatory responses leading to various auditory and visual consequences. Analysis of individual patterns of responding indicated no apparent differences between the groups during training; four individuals in each group appeared to develop generalized correspondence skills. We conclude that the outcome of correspondence training may not necessarily be verbal regulation of behavior as is assumed. Rather, we suggest that the notion of rule-governed behavior can best account for the type of behavior changes seen in correspondence studies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correspondence Training: An Example of Rule‐governed Behavior?

Deacon¹,

Konarski

1987

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Criteria for other generalized classes, including negative correspondence, follow from this analysis. DESCRIPTORS: contingency space, correspondence, generalization, verbal behavior Experiments in both laboratory and field settings have been concerned with relations between saying and doing (e.g., Catania, Matthews, & Shimoff, 1982;Matthews, Catania, & Shimoff, 1985;Paniagua & Baer, 1982;Risley & Hart, 1968). Such research raises the problem of defining and measuring relations between verbal and nonverbal behavior.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Saying and Doing: A Contingency‐space Analysis

Matthews

Shimoff

Catania

1987

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Correspondences between verbal responding (saying) and nonverbal responding (doing) may be organized in terms of the classes of verbal/nonverbal relations into which particular instances of verbal/nonverbal response sequences can enter. Contingency spaces, which display relations among events in terms of the probability of one event given or not given another, have been useful in analyses of nonverbal behavior. We derive a taxonomy of verbal/nonverbal behavior relations from a contingency space that takes into account two conditional probabilities: the probability of a nonverbal response given a verbal response and that probability given the absence of the verbal response. For example, positive correspondence may be said to exist as a response class when the probability of doing is high given saying but is otherwise low. Criteria for other generalized classes, including negative correspondence, follow from this analysis.

show abstract

“…A relationship between what a person says he/she will do and then do, or between what he/she does and later says that he/she has done is termed correspondence between verbal and nonverbal behavior (Israel, 1978). Basic research in this area suggests that correspondence procedures can produce rapid changes in nonverbal (target) behavior by strengthening the appropriate verbal-nonverbal relationship (Baer, Williams, Osnes, & Stokes, 1984;Israel & O'Leary, 1973;Paniagua, Stella, Holt, Baer, & Etzel, 1982;Paniagua & Baer, 1982;Risley & Hart, 1968). Several researchers have emphasized the clinical effects of correspondence training in the management of various forms of behaviors in normal and abnormal qhildren (Baer, Osnes, & Stokes, 1983;Finney, Russo, & Cataldo, 1982;Paniagua, 1985;Rogers-Warren & Baer, 1976;Whitman, Scibak, Butler, Richter, & Johnson, 1982).…”

Section: /Paniagua Pumariega and Blackmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first experiment includes a replication of one of the procedures used by Paniagua (1987) that is termed "reinforcement of corresponding reports," and it investigates the clinical effects of another procedure termed "reinforcement of fulfillment of promise" (Paniagua & Baer, 1982). The second experiment compares the "reinforcement of corresponding procedure" with another intervention termed "reinforcement set up on promises" (Paniagua & Baer, 1982). During the "reinforcement set up on promises" procedure, the reinforcer is displayed contingent upon a promise and the child is told the displayed reinforcer would be available later contingent upon fulfillment of the promise.…”

Section: /Paniagua Pumariega and Blackmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical effects of correspondence training in the management of hyperactive children

Paniagua

Pumariega

Black

1988

Behavioral Interventions

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Overactivity, inattention, and noise in three hyperactive children were intervened with correspondence training procedures. One subject was intervened with the "reinforcement of corresponding reports" procedure: true reports about the inhibition of hyperactivity were reinforced. Another subject's hyperactive behaviors were managed with the "reinforcement of fulfillment of promises" procedure: the reinforcer was delivered contingent upon the presence of both promising to inhibit hyperactivity and fulfillment of the promise. The third subject received the "reinforcement of corresponding reports" and the "reinforcement set up on promises" procedures: the reinforcer was set up or displayed contingent upon the subject's promises and delivered contingent upon fulfillment of the promise (actual inhibition of hyperactivity). These procedures were programmed in a multiple baseline design across two settings

show abstract

The Analysis of Correspondence Training as a Chain Reinforceable at Any Point

Cited by 29 publications

References 9 publications

Correspondence Training: An Example of Rule‐governed Behavior?

Correspondence Training: An Example of Rule‐governed Behavior?

Saying and Doing: A Contingency‐space Analysis

Clinical effects of correspondence training in the management of hyperactive children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About