The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 19–28 | Cite as

The effects of specific versus nonspecific reinforcement on verbal behavior

  • Steven J. Braam
  • Mark L. Sundberg


The current study is a systematic replication and extension of previous research on the differences between specific (mand) and nonspecific (tact) reinforcement. The focus was on the role that these different consequences played in the acquisition of verbal behavior. Using both a within-subject and a between-subjects design, the current researchers trained eight essentially nonverbal individuals to tact a variety of foods under two different reinforcement conditions. The results showed no significant differences between the four matched-pairs in rates of acquisition, or in the resistance to extinction. However, subjects in the specific reinforcement condition emitted more untrained mand-compliance responses, while subjects in the nonspecific group demonstrated increased generalization to multiply controlled mand conditions. The results supported previous findings which indicated that the two types of consequences were equally effective in the acquisition of tacting, but each had unique features and implications for language training with nonverbal populations.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Braam, S. J., & Poling, A. (1983). Development of intraverbal behavior in mentally retarded individuals through transfer of stimulus control procedures: Classification of verbal responses. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 4, 279–302.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Carr, E. G., Binkoff, J. A., Kologinsky, E., & Eddy, M. (1978). Acquisition of sign language by autistic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 489–502.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Carroll, R. J., & Hesse, B. E. (1987). The effects of alternating mand and tact training on the acquisition of tacts. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 5, 55–65.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Doll, E. (1965). Vineland Social Maturity Scale. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
  5. Faw, G., Reid, D., Schepis, M., Fitzgerald, J., & Welty, P. (1981). Involving institutional staff in the development and maintenance of sign language skills with profoundly retarded persons. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 411–424.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Hall, G., & Sundberg, M. L. (1987). Teaching mands by manipulating conditioned establishing operations. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 5, 41–53.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Michael, J.L. (1982). Distinguishing between discriminative and motivational functions of stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 149–155.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Michael, J.L. (1983). Evocative and repertoire-altering effects of an environmental event. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 2, 21–23.Google Scholar
  10. Michael, J.L. (1988). Establishing operations and the mand. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 6, 3–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Sigafoos, J., Reichle, J., Doss, S., Hall, K., & Pettitt, L. (1990). “Spontaneous” transfer of stimulus control from tact to mand contingencies. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 11, 165–176.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Stafford, M. W., Sundberg, M. L., & Braam, S. J. (1988). A preliminary investigation of the consequences that define the mand and the tact. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 6, 61–71.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Sundberg, M. L., San Juan, B., Dawdy, M., & Argüelles, M. (1990). The acquisition of tacts, mands, and intraverbals by individuals with traumatic brain injury. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 8, 83–99.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Terman, L., & Merrill, M. (1973). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven J. Braam
    • 1
  • Mark L. Sundberg
    • 2
  1. 1.New Medico Rehabilitation Center of WisconsinWaterfordUSA
  2. 2.Sundberg and AssociatesConcordCanada

Personalised recommendations