The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 55–62 | Cite as

The Effects of Praising Qualifying Autoclitics on the Frequency of Reading

  • Maria Martha Costa Hübner
  • John Austin
  • Caio F. Miguel
Article

Abstract

In the current study, tacts with positive qualifying autoclitics for reading were reinforced in order to determine if this procedure would increase the time spent reading by participants. Participants included 5 children, between 9–10 years old. Participants were individually exposed to 4 free operant sessions during which they were instructed to independently choose play activities. During pre- and post-treatment conditions, no consequences were provided for choosing reading. In addition, 4 treatment sessions were conducted on days separate from the free operant session days, during which the experimenter praised each positive reading-related statement emitted by the participant. Following treatment sessions, 4 out of 5 participants increased the time allocated to reading, suggesting that reading could be increased when praise is delivered contingent upon positive reading-related verbalizations.

Key words

tact autoclitic reading verbal behavior 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Catania, A. C. (2007). Learning. (4th interim ed.) Cornwall-on-Hudson, NY: Sloan.Google Scholar
  2. Catania, A. C., Matthews, B. A., & Shimoff, E. (1982). Instructed versus shaped human verbal behavior: Interactions with non-verbal responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 38, 233–248.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Catania, A. C., Shimoff, E., & Matthews, B. A. (1989). An experimental analysis of rule governed behavior. In S.C. Hayes (Ed.), Rule governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  4. Horne, P.J., & Lowe, C.F. (1996). On the origins of naming and other symbolic behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 185–241.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. INEP (2006). Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Teixeira [National Institute for Studies and Educational Researches]. Resultados do censo escolar, 2005. Retrieved August 14, 2006, from http://www.inep.gov.br/Google Scholar
  6. Lloyd, K. E. (2002). A Review of Correspondence Training: Suggestions for a Revival. The Behavior Analyst, 25, 57–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Ono, K. (1994). Verbal control of superstitious behavior: Superstition as false rules. In Hayes, S. C., Hayes, L. J., Sato, M., & Ono, K. (Eds.). Behavior analysis of language and cognition, (pp. 181–196). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  8. Ribeiro, A. F. (1989). Children’s self-report behavior: A study of correspondence between verbal and non-verbal and self-description. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 361–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Santos, J. A. (1996). Avaliaçăo do interesse por leitura em alunos de 2a e 4a series [Reading interest assessment for 2nd and 4th grade students]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal de Săo Carlos, Săo Paulo, Brazil.Google Scholar
  10. Schlinger, H., & Blakely, E. (1987). Function-altering effects of contingency-specifying stimuli. The Behavior Analyst, 10, 41–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Martha Costa Hübner
    • 1
  • John Austin
    • 2
  • Caio F. Miguel
    • 3
  1. 1.Universidade de São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Western Michigan UniversityUSA
  3. 3.California State UniversitySacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations