Advertisement

The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 61–71 | Cite as

A preliminary investigation of the consequences that define the mand and the tact

  • Mark W. Stafford
  • Mark L. Sundberg
  • Steven J. Braam
Article

Abstract

Skinner (1957) proposed that the mand and the tact differed with respect to their unique antecedents and consequences. The present study examined the specific reinforcement characteristic of the mand, and the nonspecific reinforcement characteristic of the tact. A severely mentally impaired individual who used sign language served as subject. A concurrent-chain with latency measures and choice was used. The results showed that specific reinforcement produced stronger verbal behavior than nonspecific reinforcement, but only when response strength was measured in terms of latency and choice. These data lend support to Skinner’s assertion that the mand and the tact are different operants. These results also have practical significance in that they may lead to more effective work with individuals who have speech and language impairments.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Carroll, R.J. & Hesse, B. E. (1987). The effects of altering mand and tact training on the acquisition of tacts. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 5, 55–65.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Day, W. F. (1975). Contemporary behaviorism and the concept of intention. In J. K. Cole and W. J. Arnold (Eds.) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 65–131), Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  3. Hall, G., & Sundberg, M. L. (1987). Teaching mands by manipulating conditioned establishing operations. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 5, 41–53.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Lamarre, J., & Holland, J. G. (1985). The functional independence of mands and tacts. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 5–19.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Michael, J. L. (1982). Distinguishing between discriminative and motivational functions of stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 149–155.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Michael, J. L. (1988). Establishing operations and the mand. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 6, 3–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Nevin, J. A., & Mandell, C. (1978). Conditioned reinforcement and choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 29, 135–148.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Saunders, R. R., & Sailor, W. (1979). A comparison of three strategies of reinforcement on two-choice learning problems with severely retarded children. AAESPH Review, 4, 323–333.Google Scholar
  9. Skinner, B. F. (1956). A case history in scientific method. American Psychologist, 11, 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sundberg, M. L. (1987). Teaching language to the developmentally disabled: A course manual. Prince George, B. C.: College of New Caledonia Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark W. Stafford
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Mark L. Sundberg
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Steven J. Braam
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Goodwill IndustriesMuskegonUSA
  2. 2.Sundberg & AssociatesConcordUSA
  3. 3.Western Michigan UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations