Correspondence Between Saying and Doing: Some Thoughts on Defining Correspondence and Future Directions for Application

Karlan, George R.; Rusch, Frank R.

doi:10.1901/jaba.1982.15-151

Cited by 60 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This study investigated an approach that has not previously been reported with hyperactive children: correspondence training (Israel, 1978;Karlan & Rusch, 1982). Basic research in the area of correspondence training 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, 1973;Israel & Brown, 1977;Israel & O'Leary, 1973;Paniagua, Stella, Holt, Etzel, & Baer, 1982;Risley & Hart, 1968;Rogers-Warren & Baer, 1976;Williams & Stokes, 1982).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of hyperactive children through correspondence training procedures: A preliminary study

Paniagua

1987

Behavioral Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the clinical effects of correspondence training procedures in the management of three hyperactive boys between the ages of seven and 10 years. Two subjects were intervened with the "reinforcement of corresponding reports" procedure: reports about the inhibition of hyperactivity (inattention and overactivity) were reinforced only if they corresponded with the actual inhibition of hyperactivity. The "reinforcement set up contingent upon promises" procedure was used with the third subject: the reinforcer was set up (or displayed) contingent on the patient's promises about the inhibition of hyperactivity in the immediate future, and delivered contingent upon fulfillment of the promise (actual inhibition of hyperactivity). These interventions were programmed in a multipie baseline design across two subjects and a multiple baseline design across two behaviors. A changing-criterion design was also used with all subjects: the nonoccurrence of hyperactivity had to be observed across a pre-established criterion level for the actual delivery of the reinforcer. Consistently higher levels of correspondence occurred during treatment, relative to baseline observations. The results also demonstrated the generalization and maintenance of treatment effects. The use of correspondence training as a potential alternative in the development of hyperactive children's self-control is discussed.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of hyperactive children through correspondence training procedures: A preliminary study

Paniagua

1987

Behavioral Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That is, when certain programming tactics are used (e.g., indiscriminable contingencies) in training, reinforcement of statements alone is sometimes sufficient to control related behavior that has not been directly reinforced (e.g., Baer, Williams, Osnes, & Stokes, 1984 Studies that returned to baseline conditions after correspondence training have typically found either no maintenance in responses when the recently manipulated contingencies have been withdrawn (Williams & Stokes, 1982). Because correspondence training generally involves a continuous reinforcement schedule for engaging in target behaviors, rapid extinction following its removal is not surprising (e.g., Karlan & Rusch, 1982).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Programming Maintenance After Correspondence Training Interventions With Children

Guevremont

Osnes

Stokes

1986

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interventions were employed to program maintenance following correspondence training. The use of reinforcement of verbalization and a mixed sequence of procedures designed to establish indiscriminable contingencies was evaluated in multiple-baseline designs across subjects and behaviors.The results indicated that target behaviors were maintained under less intrusive interventions and in the absence of programmed contingencies during extended follow-up conditions. The results are discussed in terms of changes in reinforcement schedules established in maintenance interventions.

show abstract

“…The present experiment was designed to evaluate the functional correspondence between nonverbal matching performance, the correctness of instructions, and the correctness of self-descriptions in a first-order matching-to-sample task (Deacon & Konarski, 1987;Israel & Brown, 1977;Karlan & Rusch , 1982;Paniagua & Baer, 1982). The study was planned to evaluate whether instructions and self-descriptions develop different functional relations with matching performance when they correspond, or fail to correspond to actual contingencies.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correspondence Between Instructions, Performance, and Self-Descriptions in A Conditional Discrimination Task: The Effects of Feedback and Type of Matching Response

Ribes

Rodríguez

2001

Psychol Rec

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four experiments were designed to evaluate the functional correspondence of effective performance with correct or incorrect instructions and correct or incorrect self-descriptions in a first-order matching-to-sample task. These studies included verbal or nonverbal matching responses and provided feedback or not after the participants described their matching performance. The results point to three possible discrimination learning processes in humans: (1) learning through instructions, with a possible insensitivity to consequences unless the correspondence between instructions and feedback breaks down; (2) learning through feedback, with an inability of participants to describe their own behavior; and (3) a genuine "rule-governed" behavior consisting of successful task performance and explicit verbal behavior describing the actual contingencies effective for such performance.Matching to sample is the most frequently used task in the study of conditional discrimination learning in animal and human participants (Goldiamond, 1966). In conditional discrimination, the particular properties of the events that qualify as discriminative stimuli (SOs) or as S-delta stimuli (S~s) usually vary according to certain relational criteria (transposition, matching). In the case of matching-to-sample procedures, the relevant properties of SOs and S~s may be related to a single sample stimulus (first-order matching to sample), or to a relation between two or more stimuli (second-order stimuli) that are added to the first-order task (second-order matching to sample).1 The relational criteria most widely used in matching to sample have been identity (when stimuli share all of their properties), similarity (when stimuli share only 1 In second-order matching-to-sample, two second-order stimuli, one sample stimulus, and at least two comparison stimuli are presented. The second-order stimuli specify the "correct" criterion for matching the sample and comparison stimuli. Thus, if the two secondorder stimuli are identical in color and shape, the correct comparison is the one matching the sample in color and shape.We acknowledge the suggestions made by Fran,

show abstract

Correspondence Between Saying and Doing: Some Thoughts on Defining Correspondence and Future Directions for Application

Cited by 60 publications

References 27 publications

Management of hyperactive children through correspondence training procedures: A preliminary study

Management of hyperactive children through correspondence training procedures: A preliminary study

Programming Maintenance After Correspondence Training Interventions With Children

Correspondence Between Instructions, Performance, and Self-Descriptions in A Conditional Discrimination Task: The Effects of Feedback and Type of Matching Response

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About