The Effects of a Stimulus-Stimulus Pairing Procedure on the Vocal Behavior of Children Diagnosed with Autism
- 17 Downloads
Recent research suggests that the sound produced by a child’s vocalization can become a conditioned reinforcer via the temporal pairing of an experimenter’s vocal model with a preferred stimulus delivered to the child. The current study replicated and extended the findings of previous studies in this area. A multiple baseline design across vocal behaviors (combined with a reversal to baseline) was used to evaluate the effects of a stimulus-stimulus pairing procedure on one-syllable utterances of 3 boys who had been diagnosed with autism. Data were collected during presession and postsession observations across four conditions: baseline, control, pairing, and reversal. During baseline, the free-operant levels of target sounds were recorded in the absence of experimenter interaction. During the control condition, the experimenter presented a vocal model and, after a 20-s delay, presented a preferred stimulus to the child. During the pairing condition, the experimenter’s vocal model was paired with the delivery of the preferred item. Results from postsession observations during the pairing condition showed an increase in target sounds for 2 participants. This outcome may suggest that the children’s vocalizations were automatically reinforced, albeit only temporarily. Practical and theoretical implications of the results are discussed along with the specific methods employed in this literature.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bennett, G., & Yoon, S. (2000, May). The role of a pairing procedure on subsequent mand acquisition and relations between children’s baseline vocal play or vocal verbal repertoires and the effectiveness of the pairing procedure. Paper presented at the 26th annual convention of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Bijou, S. W, & Baer, D. M. (1965). Child development: Vol. 2. Universal stage of infancy. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
- Carr, J. E., Coriaty, S., & Dozier, C. L. (2000). Current issues in the function-based treatment of aberrant behavior in individuals with developmental disabilities. In J. Austin & J. E. Carr (Eds.), Handbook of applied behavior analysis (pp. 91–112). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
- Lovaas, O. I. (1981). Teaching developmental disabled children: The me book. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
- Novak, G. (1996). Developmental psychology: Dynamical systems and behavior analysis. Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
- Sundberg, M. L., & Partington, J. W (1998). Teaching language to children with autism or other developmental disabilities. Pleasant Hill, CA: Behavior Analysts, Inc.Google Scholar
- Vaughan, M. E., & Michael, J. (1982). Automatic reinforcement: An important but ignored concept. Behaviorism, 10, 217–227.Google Scholar
- Wacker, D. P. (1996). Behavior analysis research in J AB A: A need for studies that bridge basic and applied research. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 14, 11–14.Google Scholar