Chapter 3

Observing Responses: Foundations of

Higher-Order Verbal Operants

Dolleen-Day Keohane and Jo Ann Pereira Delgado,

Columbia University Teachers College and CABAS;
R. Douglas Greer,
Columbia University Graduate School of Arts
and Science Teachers College

Observing responses associated with listener and speaker repertoires is the foundation of
certain aspects of early language. Observing responses consist of the operant responses of
looking, listening, tasting, smelling, and touching. The observing operants are selected
out by the consequences that reinforce observation, and the stimuli that reinforce them
are established by reinforcement conditioning processes. These observing responses and
their reinforcers lead to the development of more complex behaviors (Donahoe & Palmer,
2004; Greer & Ross, 2008). Observing responses are critical to production responses,
both of which are inherent in a variety of cultural practices, including art, music, and lan-
guage. We have identified some of the subcomponents of language as a result of working
inductively toward a hierarchy of verbal development (Greer & Keohane, 2005; Greer &
Ross, 2008), drawing on Skinner’s verbal behavior theory and extensions of that theory
(Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, 2001; Horne & Lowe, 1996; Skinner, 1957, 1989). In
this chapter we will concentrate on prelistener and early-listener capabilities, because they
lead to the emergence of new verbal capabilities, or cusps, in children with autism and
other developmental disabilities. Prelisteners are defined as children who do not observe
their environment, do not participate in the social community, and are completely depen-
dent on others for their very survival. Early listeners are children who have basic ­observing
skills, are able to participate in the social community to some extent, can follow a number
of directions, and are less dependent on others for their everyday needs.
We propose that the emergence of imitation through observation, conditioned rein-
forcement of listening to voices, looking at stimuli and print, and matching stimuli across
the senses may be prerequisites for the development of observing responses as related to
early language acquisition. Such early language acquisition occurs across repertoires of lis-
tener (for example, a child who follows simple directions), speaker-listener (for example,
a child with vowel-consonant auditory discrimination skills that result in the production
of speech), speaker-as-own-listener (for example, a child who is able to speak and listen to
himself or herself, as in “thinking”), and cross-modal capacity for sameness (for example, a
child who discriminates what is the same and what is different across sensory modalities).
We have been on an applied behavior analytic journey of sorts, beginning with Skinner’s
theoretical framework of verbal behavior (1957) and the recent expansions of that theory
(Greer & Keohane, 2005; Hayes et al., 2001; Horne & Lowe, 1996). Along the way we have
incorporated theories, research, and practices related to the basic science and, when relevant,
the infant developmental literature and animal social learning theory. The cumulative body
of literature was very useful to us in our development of instructional protocols for children
with significant language delays due to autism or other developmental disorders. These pro-
tocols are based on a progression of complex language functions or cusps (Baer, 1983; Hart
& Risley, 1999; Premack, 2004; Rosales-Ruiz & Baer, 1997). We also reviewed evidence
that nonhumans could be taught certain noncomplex features of language (Epstein, Lanza,
& Skinner, 1980, 1981; Premack & Premack, 2003; Savage-Rumbaugh, Rumbaugh, &
Boysen, 1978), and that teaching, as distinct from acquiring repertoires based on model-
ing, is unique to the human species (Premack, 2004). As we moved forward, it became
increasingly clear that listener, speaker-listener, and speaker-as-own-listener repertoires make
complex verbal behavior possible and are unique to humans.
As part of the process of developing a comprehensive systems-based behavior analytic
approach to teaching and learning over the last twenty-five years, the Comprehensive
Application of Behavior Analysis to Schooling (CABAS) team and colleagues in the
applied behavior analysis programs at Columbia University Teachers College have com-
piled instructional components based upon new research findings. The CABAS system
includes empirically based curricula and protocols for teaching new operants, the training
and motivation of teachers and other school professionals, and the design of functional
curricula (Greer, 2002). Our work has also allowed us to identify and remediate missing
developmental cusps in children with autism and related developmental disabilities.
Inherent in this system is the conceptualization of learn units, or instructional presenta-
tions that provide yoked or interlocking contingencies between teacher and child. Learn
units include (1) the need to know (for example, a motivating condition; (2) the child’s
attention to the relevant antecedent stimulus, such as the teacher’s instructions; (3) an
opportunity for the child to respond; (4) reinforcing consequences immediately follow-
ing correct responses; and (5) noncoercive corrections that immediately follow incorrect
responses and require the child to repeat the correct response (see Greer, 2002, and Greer
& Ross, 2008, for the extensive research base).
Our early-language training programs focus on self-awareness, or the ability to observe
ourselves, an essential component of language acquisition. When children begin to respond
to adult voices, make sustained eye contact with visual stimuli, learn to imitate through
observation, and match stimuli across the senses, they demonstrate early evidence of self-

44    Derived Relational Responding

awareness. They are able to distinguish between themselves and others in their environ-
ment. This distinction is elemental to all observing and producing responses and is the
basis for participating in such culturally evolved activities as music, art, or language.

Building Listener Literacy for Children with

Language Delays
In our initial efforts to treat children with significant communication delays we focused
on speaker repertoires, following Skinner’s lead (1957), or what is often traditionally
described as expressive language. It was a logical approach and was closely tied to Skinner’s
emphasis on the speaker, since the children we worked with were frequently unable to
speak. However, when the children began to display some speaker behavior, it was often
context specific, scripted, and directly taught. Even though our assessments focused on
both speaker and listener repertoires, including listener skills that involved responding
appropriately to the language of others (as in orienting toward or identifying environmen-
tal stimuli labeled by others and complying with spoken instructions [Skinner, 1957]), we
were much better able to measure and produce responses associated with speaking skills.
As a result of our research and our success (as well as our lack of success) with indi-
vidual children, we reconsidered Skinner’s comments on the role of the listener. Skinner
described the relationship between the speaker and the listener as follows: “When the
listener looks to the speaker for an extension of his own sensory capacities, or for contact
with distant events, or for an accurate characterization of a puzzling situation, the speak-
er’s behavior is most useful to him if the environmental control has not been disturbed
by other variables” (Skinner, 1957, p. 418). This description provided us with a way to
reconceptualize the components of early-language development and design protocols for
assessment and intervention related to listener skills among children with autism and
related disabilities.

Classifying Children’s Prerequisite Foundations of

Verbal Behavior as Listener Developmental Cusps
As soon as we identified some of the capabilities that children needed in order to prog-
ress, these were organized into a hierarchy of verbal developmental milestones or cusps
(Greer & Keohane, 2005). This facilitated the identification of prerequisite skills and
the design of protocols to provide a means for children to advance across these cusps.
Compliance with adult instructions and the establishment of the teacher as a source of
conditioned reinforcement are prerequisites for the three earliest cusps and corequisite
cusp listed below.
Shown in tables 3.1 and 3.2 are listings of prerequisite and corequisite developmental
cusps and the instructional protocols used to establish them.

Chapter 3     45
 Table 3.1. Prelistener: Very Early
Verbal Developmental Cusps

Verbal Developmental Cusp Protocol

Adult voices as conditioned reinforcers
Conditioned reinforcement for visual
stimuli
The capacity for sameness across the
senses
Conditioning listening to adult voices
Conditioning visual stimuli as
reinforcement for tracking/print
Cross-modal sensory matching

Table 3.2. Listener-Speaker:

Early Developmental Corequisite

Verbal Developmental Corequisite Protocol

Imitation The mirror procedure

Prelisteners are entirely dependent upon others for everything in their lives. Entrance
into the social community is not possible. Early listeners and early speakers are able to
participate in some aspects of the social community. When children reach speaker-as-
own-listener levels of verbal capability, they are able to participate in and contribute to the
social community in more comprehensive and independent ways.

The Development of Very Early Observing Responses

Responding to human voices appears to be an important component of children’s acqui-
sition of both listener and speaker repertoires (Peláez-Nogueras, Gewirtz, & Markham,
1996) and, not surprisingly, occurs very early in typically developing infants. Novak and
Peláez (2004) found that even newborn infants are able to discriminate human language
sounds. Since language is arbitrarily defined (for example, consonant-vowel combina-
tions are arbitrarily given meaning), the individual’s responding must come under control
of the acoustical properties of speech. DeCasper and Fifer (1980) conducted a study in
which newborns could occasion the playing of a recording of either their mother’s voices
or the voice of an unknown female by sucking on a nonnutritive nipple at differential
rates. Once the response requirement was established, it was found that the infants caused
the recordings of their mothers’ voices to be played more frequently than the recording
of the unknown female’s voice, suggesting that certain voices may become conditioned

46    Derived Relational Responding

reinforcers early in life. We propose that the mothers’ voices selected out the attention of
the children because they were conditioned reinforcers for observing responses.
Most typically developing infants begin to differentiate between consonant-vowel
combinations, such as “pa” and “ba,” within their first month (Eimas, Siqueland, Jusczyk,
& Vigorito, 1971); in fact, vocal imitation of phonetic units appears to play a critical role
in infants’ acquisition of language (Kuhl & Meltzoff, 1996). For children with significant
language delays, however, adult voices do not serve as reinforcers for listening and, as a
result, prelistener skills may not develop. If voices do not select out attention, discrimina-
tions of the “pa” and “ba” sounds are not likely to occur. Field (1987) found that children
at higher risk for developmental disabilities did not develop positive social interactions
through typical mother-infant play, and they needed more intensive stimulation than did
typically developing children before responding positively to a caregiver’s touch and voice.
Our work suggests that the attainment of conditioned reinforcement for listening to adult
voices is one of the earliest capabilities associated with language development and social
functioning.
Children who are selected for the conditioning listening to adult voices protocol,
outlined in table 3.3, are assessed to be prelisteners. They do not typically respond to
visual or auditory stimuli in the environment and as a result cannot progress toward their
curricular goals. Pre- and post-test measures of the children’s levels of responding to learn
units across all areas of the curriculum are taken before and after mastery of the protocol,
as are measures of nonfunctional self-talk. Observing responses associated with sustained
eye contact and observation of the activities of other individuals in the immediate envi-
ronment are also measured before and after mastery of the protocol. The measures of the
numbers of learn units required in order to master components of the curricula are tests
of the rate of learning.
In this chapter, for the protocols we describe based on a pair and test trial format (con-
ditioning listening to adult voices and conditioning print stimuli), we use the Pavlovian
second-order conditioning procedure. The teacher delivers edibles and noninterfering
unconditioned reinforcers (such as edibles) or conditioned reinforcers (such as praise or a
token if they are truly conditioned reinforcers) when the child is attending appropriately
to the target item or activity. Data are recorded using a pair and test trial format. Initially,
the first short-term objective begins with a five-second pair trial interval, and when com-
pleted successfully it is followed by a five-second test trial interval. During the pairing
trial, the teacher delivers a reinforcer either two or three times contingent upon the child’s
emitting the target behavior. The trials of two and three pairings are alternated. However,
if the child does not engage in the target activity or item and/or emits stereotypy or pas-
sivity at any time during the pairing trial, the pairing trial is immediately restarted. The
test trial begins only when the pairing trial is completed without stereotypy or passivity.
During the test trial, the teacher records whether or not the child engages in the
activity or item according to the definition of the target behavior for the duration of the
interval used (five-, ten-, or fifteen-second intervals or longer). No reinforcement is deliv-
ered during the test trial. Whole interval recording is used, in which a correct response is
recorded if the child engages appropriately for the entire interval. If at any point the child
is not engaging in the activity or item appropriately, an incorrect response is recorded,
the test session is ended immediately, and the next pairing interval is started. Data are
recorded and graphed out of twenty for the number of correct test trials. Generally, cri-
terion is set at 90 percent for two consecutive pair and test trial sessions. When the child

Chapter 3     47
does not meet the 90 percent criterion for the five-minute free operant test of listening
to the recorded voices, we increase the duration of the pair and test intervals (such as ten
seconds, fifteen seconds, and twenty seconds), until the child meets criterion.

Table 3.3. Conditioning Listening to Adult

Voices Protocol: Conditioning Adult Voices as
Reinforcement for Observing Responses

Rationale This protocol is indicated if a child does not orient toward adult voices
and/or look at speakers, particularly those holding sources of reinforce-
ment. Be certain the child does not have a major hearing deficit before
attempting to teach this stimulus control. If voices do not select out
or attract the child’s attention, the child is unlikely to be prepared to
discriminate vowel-consonant sounds and other aspects of speech that
come to have listener and speaker effects. If adult voices are condi-
tioned reinforcers for observing responses, the child will learn at a
significantly faster rate.
Pre- and Twenty experimental probe trials (no consequences) should be com-
Post- pleted using duration recording of each trial lasting one or more
intervention seconds. These probe trials should consist of a variety of novel oppor-
Probes to tunities for the child to respond to an adult’s presence (for example,
Test for the the child turns toward an adult when her name is called, looks toward
Acquisition an adult entering the room, looks toward an adult speaking to a child
of the Cusp nearby, or looks toward an adult rearranging the child’s environment,
such as moving a toy or other tabletop materials; please see “Pre- and
Post-probes of Observing Responses” below), measured in three selected
environments (one-to-one, small group, and unstructured settings).
Pre- and post-protocol probes of total learn units to criterion across
subject area lessons (such as match/duplicate, point/show) based on a
minimum of 1,000 learn units and 1 criterion per category should be
completed.
Pre- and post-probes of observing responses: In a 20-trial format (a
trial should continue for at least 1 second to meet the response defi-
nition criterion), the duration of the following responses should be
measured:
Data collection settings: In one-to-one (such as teacher and child),
small group (for example, 2 to 6 children), and unstructured settings
(such as a play area), the duration of the following responses should be
measured:
1. Child orienting toward a speaker when her name is called from a
distance of 1 to 4 feet

48    Derived Relational Responding

 2. Child orienting toward a speaker when her name is called from a
distance of 1 to 4 feet
3. Child orienting toward a speaker when her name is called from a
distance of 5 to 8 feet
4. Child orienting toward a speaker when the child is given a direction
from a distance of 1 to 4 feet
5. Child orienting toward a speaker when the child is given a direction
from a distance of 5 to 8 feet
6. Child orienting toward a speaker when another child is spoken to
from a distance of 1 to 4 feet
7. Child orienting toward a speaker when another child is spoken to
from a distance of 5 to 8 feet
8. Child orienting toward an adult rearranging the child’s materials on
the desk
9. Child orienting toward an adult removing the child’s materials from
the desk
10. C
 hild orienting toward an adult entering the room who is not
speaking
Materials Use nursery rhymes or selections from children’s books recorded by the
child’s mother, teacher, and someone the child does not know. Tapes or
CDs should be 5 minutes in duration and should not include singing.
Have 6 or more recordings available that are rotated in equal measure
across speakers.
Special Note Academic lessons other than those associated with an expanded com-
munity of activities and interests (such as looking at books, playing
with toys, manipulating puzzles, and so on) are suspended during the
implementation of the protocol. A multiple probe format is used.
Conditioning Use a tape recorder or other recording device that reproduces the
Procedure selected voices when the button is manually held down by the
child and automatically stops when the child takes her hand off the
button. Electric switches from speech therapy catalogues can be used.
Alternatively, you may substitute a laminated circle or square that will
act as a simulated on/off button or switch for the child to touch while
the teacher controls the progress of the recording device. (If the child
has her hand on the simulated disk or switch, the tape is played; if the
child takes her hand off the disk or switch, the tape is stopped immedi-
ately.) Note that touching the disk or switch, is the most direct measure
of the auditory observational response, and this allows us to determine
if the child is listening or not listening. If the child emits stereotypy,
the tape should be stopped as well. A pair-test conditioning procedure
with pre- and post-tests of the child’s orienting to voices is described

Chapter 3     49
 above under “Pre- and Post-test Probe Trials.” In the pairing segment,
edibles are typically paired with listening to adult voices until the child
listens with no observable stereotypy (stereotypy is a competing rein-
forcer). During the pairing intervals, 2 and 3 pairings of edibles should
be rotated (the number stays the same as the pairing intervals graduate
from 5 seconds to 10 seconds, then 15 seconds, and so on). No rein-
forcement procedures are used during test trials.
Sessions are typically 5 minutes in duration and whole interval
continuous 5-second intervals constitute measurement of the student’s
progress in achieving criterion on the conditioning intervention.
Criterion 90% of 5-second whole interval recordings (ninety 5-second intervals)
over two 5-minute consecutive sessions. Criterion for meeting the
test of conditioned reinforcement is 90% + intervals for 2 consecutive
5-minute sessions with no observation of stereotypy or passivity. The
voice is a conditioned reinforcer when the child will touch the disk or
hold down the button continuously for 90% of the observation inter-
vals recorded in 5-second intervals within a 5-minute session.

This protocol has been repeatedly shown to be effective in increasing a child’s listen-
ing to adult voices (Greer, Keohane, & Delgado, 2006), conditioning listening to specific
music (Greer, Dorow, & Hanser, 1973; Greer, Dorow, Wachhaus, & White, 1973) and
acquisition of more complex verbal, academic, and social skill sets (Tsai & Greer, 2006).

Conditioning Observing Visual Stimuli

An early challenge for those who work with children with severe language delays is
ensuring that the children visually attend to relevant environmental stimuli. Many of
the children we work with do not make sustained eye contact with other individuals or
stimuli in the environment. Sustained attention to visual stimuli is a critical early step
in language acquisition, as these children may otherwise be unable to develop correspon-
dence between what they hear and what they see. Prior research reported that visual
training may actually enhance tactile discrimination skills in young children (Krekling,
Tellevik, & Nordvik, 1989), and that reinforcement in the form of music or other pre-
ferred activities may improve visual tracking skills in infants (Darcheville, Madelain,
Buquet, Charlier, & Miossec, 1999). Because of our many years of work with children
with disabilities, we knew that language acquisition was hindered when the children did
not make sustained eye contact with stimuli in the environment. As a result we designed
a protocol using a form of conjugate reinforcement to address the problem. Collier and
Bitetti-Capatides (1979) defined conjugate reinforcement as continuous reinforcement
during which the intensity of the reinforcement is directly related to the intensity of the
response (for example, in vigor, rate, or duration). For example, the longer a child gazes
at a colorful toy, the longer the duration of the reinforcer for gazing at the toy—the
sight of the colorful toy itself). That is, the degree to which the child’s attention to the

50    Derived Relational Responding

visual stimulus is selected out is a measure of the reinforcement by that stimulus of the
child’s operant observing behavior. We frequently find that when a child is having dif-
ficulty acquiring prelistener verbal capabilities, the problem is related to a lack of attend-
ing behaviors associated with specific and general observation of the environment. The
objective of the visual tracking protocol, outlined in table 3.4, is to condition sustained
observation of visual stimuli by pairing unconditioned or conditioned reinforcers (such
as edibles and toys) with the child’s attention to visual stimuli (Keohane & Greer, 2005).
In this way, we transfer the reinforcement control from the unconditioned or conditioned
reinforcement to the previously neutral stimulus (in other words, attending to the visual
stimuli that is now a reinforcer for the operant observing response). See the introduction
to Tsai and Greer (2006) for references to the extensive laboratory research on conjugate
reinforcement.
Prelisteners who attend to visual stimuli inconsistently, do not imitate teacher model-
ing, do not match to sample, do not follow basic directions, and fail to meet short-term
and long-term curricular objectives are candidates for the visual tracking protocol. Pre-
and post-test measures of responding to learn units across all areas of the curriculum,
and the observing responses associated with sustained eye contact to stimuli and other
individuals in the environment, are measured before and after mastery of the protocol.

Table 3.4. Visual Tracking Protocol: Observing 3-D

Tabletop Stimuli as Conditioned Reinforcement

Rationale This protocol should be implemented if a child does not attend to

visual stimuli or look at adults or children in the environment and
emits low numbers of correct responses across visual matching pro-
grams and other curricula requiring attention to visual stimuli. See
Greer and Ross (2008) for prerequisites.
Experimental These probes are measures of the child’s rate of learning instructional
Probes objectives that entail visual observing. If 3-D visual stimuli are condi-
tioned reinforcers for observing responses, the child will learn at a signifi-
cantly faster rate than he would if the stimuli do not reinforce looking.
Pre- and post-protocol probes of total learn units to criterion, visual
(e.g., match/duplicate) learn units to criterion, and visual-listener (e.g.,
point/show) learn units to criterion based on a minimum of 1,000 learn
units and 1 criterion per category should be completed.
Pre- and post-protocol probes of eye contact and visual tracking of
items and individuals in three selected environments (one-to-one, small
group, and unstructured) should be completed using duration recording
of each trial lasting 1 or more seconds. This could be done by starting
timing when the child begins observing the stimulus, stopping timing
when the child stops sustained observing of the stimulus, regaining the
child’s attention, and beginning another duration recording trial.

Chapter 3     51
 Pre- and post-protocol probes of sustained eye contact with stimuli:
A 20-trial probe measuring the duration of sustained eye contact with
a neutral or a nonpreferred stimulus should be completed for each trial
lasting 1 or more seconds.
Criterion for probes: If the child emits 160 (or more) cumulative
seconds of sustained eye contact with the stimulus in a maximum of 20
trials, criterion for the developmental cusp has been achieved.
Pre- and post-probes of observing responses: In a 20-trial format (a
trial should continue for at least 1 second to meet the response defi-
nition criterion), the duration of the following responses should be
measured.
Data collection settings: In one-to-one (teacher and child, for
example), small group (2 to 6 children, for example), and unstructured
settings (such as a play area), the duration of the following responses
should be measured:
1. Child making sustained eye contact with a speaker when his name
is called from a distance of 1 to 4 feet
2. Child making sustained eye contact with a speaker when his name
is called from a distance of 5 to 8 feet
3. Child looking toward a speaker when the child is given a direction
from a distance of 1 to 4 feet
4. Child looking toward a speaker when the child is given a direction
from a distance of 5 to 8 feet
5. Child looking toward a speaker when another child is spoken to
from a distance of 1 to 4 feet
6. Child looking toward a speaker when another child is spoken to
from a distance of 5 to 8 feet
7. Child making sustained visual contact as an adult rearranges the
child’s materials on the desk
8. Child making sustained visual contact as an adult removes the
child’s materials from the desk
9. Child looking toward an adult entering the room who is speaking
10. C
 hild making sustained visual contact with an adult moving about
the room who is not speaking
Materials Use 2 or 3 identical transparent containers (cups or other containers).
Vary size and shape of identical sets for each presentation. A variety of
neutral items for the pre- and post-probes (paper clips, unfamiliar shapes,
and other items) and preferred items (edibles, tokens, toys, and the like)
that can be placed under the target container should be available. A stop-
watch is used to record duration of sustained eye contact.

52    Derived Relational Responding

Special Note Programs other than those associated with self-management and an
expanded community of activities and interests (such as looking at
books, playing with toys, manipulating puzzles, and so on) should be
suspended during the implementation of the visual tracking protocol.
We suggest this because the child is not likely to progress with visual
instructional programs at this point, and it is counterproductive to
continue those programs while you are attempting to induce the cusp.
However, programs for conditioning or expanding the child’s commu-
nity of reinforcers or interests can be conducted simultaneously since
these are also reinforcers that increase a variety of observing responses.
General Data Collection: During implementation of the protocol, pairing trials
Procedure (of 1 second or more) are recorded as duration in each 20-trial session.
When the child looks away from the stimulus the duration record-
ing is stopped for that trial, and a new trial is begun after the child’s
attention is regained. Duration criterion for the long-term objective is
160 or more seconds of sustained eye contact in a 1- to 20-trial session
(in other words, it is possible for the child to reach the 160-second
cumulative objective in a session containing less than 20 trials). Each
20-second trial is an opportunity to test the duration of stimulus
control and a convenient way of delineating sessions.
Pairing procedure: Edibles, tokens, toys, and the like placed under
transparent containers should be used. The child may be prompted to
visually track the preferred item under the container during the first
few pairing trials.
Short-term objectives as tactics: Short-term objectives include incre-
mental increases in targeted duration of sustained eye contact and
interspersal of known items (such as running pairing trials until it
becomes difficult to regain the child’s attention). At that point, inter-
sperse known items (for example, have the child respond to the kinds
of instruction he has already mastered, ensuring that you do not lose
the child’s attention). In addition, use the preferred item the child
is tracking as a reinforcer for correct responding to the interspersed
trials for previously mastered stimuli). Rate of rotation of stimuli and
number of stimuli rotated (2 or 3) may be used as short-term objec-
tives in this program (for example, stimuli may be rotated 1 to 4 times
at progressively increasing rates of rotation as short-term objectives
become more complex).
Note: The child is not given an opportunity to receive the preferred
item after any pairing trial. We do this because we want only the visual
stimulus control of the object to be the conditioned reinforcer.
Criterion Two consecutive sessions with 20 (or fewer) trials resulting in 160
cumulative seconds of sustained eye contact with the target stimulus.
All programs should be reintroduced and post-probe data collected
when the child meets criterion.

Chapter 3     53
 Pre-test and post-test measures of selected programs should be conducted after each
short-term objective is achieved. When criterion is achieved the child’s full schedule of
programs or academic lessons should be resumed and post-test data collected across all
areas of the curriculum.

Conditioning Print Stimuli

Orienting toward instructional materials and the table at which instruction is conducted
is an important early observing response. Additionally, matching tasks provide impor-
tant educational goals because successful matching performance demonstrates that a child
can visually attend to stimuli, a prerequisite to learning, as well as discriminate among
the relevant properties of environmental stimuli. Basic matching involves responding
to the sameness of identical objects, identical pictures, objects to pictures, and pictures
to objects. More advanced matching may include abstractions such as matching colors,
shapes, irrelevant dimensions (such as a spotted dog versus a black dog), numbers, and
letters. The ultimate goal is for children to acquire generalized matching skills so that
they can match anything without direct instruction, including novel items that they have
never experienced before. Children with significant developmental disabilities often fail to
master both basic and generalized matching skills despite the employment of numerous
remedial techniques such as stimulus or response prompts. We have identified an effec-
tive protocol, the conditioning print stimuli on a page protocol, outlined in table 3.5, for
inducing generalized matching in such children. For children at an earlier stage of verbal
development, the visual tracking protocol (Keohane, Greer, & Ackerman, 2006) can be
used to teach looking at three-dimensional stimuli on a table, and as a result, three-
dimensional visual matching responses may be acquired. However, for other children
we find that print stimuli do not serve as conditioned reinforcers. These children may
acquire basic matching skills with three-dimensional stimuli only and are thus appropri-
ate candidates for the conditioning print stimuli on a page protocol. Our research and
clinical work has shown that when print stimuli and the pictures on pages of books are
established as conditioned reinforcers for observing, children readily acquire generalized
matching skills. In addition, we find that the children are more attentive to in a variety
of settings during and outside instructional sessions.
The conditioning stimuli on a page protocol involves delivering preferred items or
edibles while the child attends to two-dimensional stimuli on a page. The duration of the
child’s attention to such stimuli is measured on pre- and post-test probes.
Observing print stimuli is a critical cusp for a child to have. When a child does not
attend to such stimuli, more complex instructional tasks cannot be targeted. Attention
to stimuli serves as a building block for complex skills, such as joint attention (the capac-
ity to use gestures and eye contact to coordinate attention with another person in order
to share the experience of some object or event in the environment; Mundy, Sigman, &
Kasari, 1994; see also chapters 4 and 13 of this volume).

54    Derived Relational Responding

 Table 3.5. Conditioning Print Stimuli on a
Page Protocol: Conditioning Sustained Eye
Contact with Print Stimuli

Rationale Use this protocol if the child fails to attend to print stimuli and has a
high number of learn units to criterion on matching programs.
Pre- and Post- Pre- and post-test probe learn units to criterion on visual (match/
test Trials duplicate) and visual-listener (point/show) learn units to criterion based
on a minimum of 1,000 learn units and 1 criterion.
Pre- and post-test probes of looking at stimuli on a page. These probes
occur following criterion on each short-term objective of conditioning.
The teacher records whether the child looks at a single page of stimuli
for 10 consecutive seconds. Five individual pages are presented 1 page
at a time and these same pages are reserved for post-conditioning probes
only (do not use during conditioning sessions).
Materials Materials include a variety of 15 to 20 nonpreferred 2-D stimuli
(printed letters, numbers, or pictures) on 8.5-by-11-inch sheets of paper.
Special Note All matching programs and point-to programs or academic lessons are
suspended during the implementation of this protocol. Only return to
these programs when the child meets the long-term objective (LTO) for
this protocol. (The term LTO indicates that the child has acquired the
developmental cusp of conditioned reinforcement for print stimuli.)
General Deliver edibles or noninterfering conditioned reinforcers as the child
Procedure looks at various pages of stimuli with no observable stereotypy or pas-
sivity (see “Criterion”). Conduct probe sessions prior to and after each
short-term objective of the conditioning procedure, until the LTO is
achieved during the probes for looking at stimuli on a page. Accelerated
rate of learning is a key indicator of the attainment of the cusp.
Criterion Conditioning procedure = 90% for 2 consecutive sessions.
Post-probe sessions for looking at stimuli on a page = 80% or 4 out of
5. This is the LTO for the protocol.

Development of a Capacity for Sameness

Across the Senses
Having the developmental capacity for sameness across the senses helps children advance
to new behavioral developmental cusps. Acquisition of skills that combine the auditory,
visual, tactile, olfactory, and gustatory senses is critical for a child’s development. Children
cannot fully function in a verbal environment without coordination of the various sensory

Chapter 3     55
observations and discrimination skills. Children who have not met the sensory matching
developmental milestone are at the prelistener level of verbal capability and do not reliably
attend to sensory stimuli. Most children acquire this foundation of verbal development
early in life in the absence of specialized instruction. However, children with certain dis-
abilities may not acquire it without special behavioral developmental interventions. The
sensory matching protocol, outlined in table 3.6, provides children with rotated multi-
ple-exemplar experiences across five critical sensory modalities. The rotated exposure to
sensory matching experiences provided within this protocol supports the development
of this capability as well as more-complex listener behaviors (Keohane & Greer, 2005).
Greer and Ross (2008) argue that developing a capacity for sameness may be the funda-
mental step toward becoming verbal. When a child matches across all senses, she learns
an arbitrarily applicable cross-modal response of sameness.
The objective of this program is to provide children with the capacity for sameness
across different sensory modalities. If children master this protocol, they typically have
the foundation for the abstraction of sameness across sensory stimuli.

Table 3.6. The Sensory Matching Protocol:

Matching Across the Senses

Rationale We use this protocol if adult voices and visual stimuli are conditioned
reinforcers but children are not meeting short-term and long-term objec-
tives at an adequate rate and do not have the capacity to match across
the senses. Assuming 20-learn-unit instructional sessions, an adequate
rate of learning would be 80 to 120 learn units to mastery of instruc-
tional objectives.
Pre- and Post- The target of this protocol is to accelerate learning rates similar to those
intervention noted in the visual tracking goal. Increased attention is often a collateral
Probes to Test effect and should be measured also.
for Acquisition Pre- and post-probe measures of learn units to criterion, long-term
of the Cusp and short-term objectives achieved, and observing responses associated
with listener and visual sensory modalities (see “Pre- and post-probes of
observing responses,” below) should be conducted. Probes of noncontex-
tual self-talk (such as palilalia) may also be conducted if this is
a problem for the child.
Pre- and post-probes of observing responses: In a 20-trial format
(a trial should continue for at least 1 second to meet the response
definition criterion) the duration of the following responses should be
measured.
Data collection settings: In one-to-one (e.g., teacher-child), small
group (e.g., 2 to 6 children), and unstructured settings (e.g., play area),
the duration of the following responses should be measured:

56    Derived Relational Responding

 1. A child orientating toward adults or other children calling her name
2. A child orientating toward an adult or child in the immediate envi-
ronment as the first step in a conversational unit
3. A child emitting sustained eye contact with a stimulus relocated by
an adult or other child in the immediate environment
4. A child responding to instructions given by an adult in the immedi-
ate environment
5. A child emitting functional self-talk in a play area or other appropri-
ate setting
Materials Select items and presentation formats that assure that the child can
identify the matching items only through the targeted sensory modal-
ity. Select 2 exemplars across each of the 5 senses. Some suggestions for
the preparation of pairs of sensory stimuli are as follows: (1) auditory
sense (a dog barking and water running), (2) visual sense (picture of
a cow and picture of a house), (3) tactile sense (sandpaper and velvet
placed in separate sacks, one with the exemplar, and the other with the
exemplar and a nonexemplar), (4) smelling or olfactory sense (vanilla or
orange scents in matching containers), and (5) tasting or gustatory sense
(sweetened juice versus water). Each learn unit presentation includes a
correct match exemplar (the positive or target) and 2 incorrect or nega-
tive exemplar stimuli in a matching-to-sample format.
Special Note For the auditory matching component, place a device on the table with
prerecorded sounds of the selected auditory stimuli with accurate or
positive exemplars and one nonexemplar or inaccurate exemplar per
matching-to-sample procedure. Alternate orientation or positions to
ensure that position is not a factor. For the tactile component, a com-
parison can be made only when the child is touching the contents of
each sack simultaneously. The child must not be able to see the tactile
stimuli. All instructional programs other than those associated with
self-management and conditioning of preferred interests and activities
should be placed on hold or discontinued until the cusp is achieved. It
is counterproductive to continue unsuccessful instruction.
General Presentation of stimuli across the senses is rotated across 20-learn-unit
Procedure sessions. For example, an olfactory learn unit is followed by a tactile
learn unit, and then a gustatory learn unit, followed by an auditory one,
and finally a visual one. Place one exemplar and one nonexemplar on a
table; rotate nonexemplars across instructional presentations. Continue
to use this format across 20 instructional presentations per session.
Rotate the sequence of instruction and the nonexemplars so that the
child does not learn to respond in a particular order, and also rotate
orientation of positive and negative exemplars per learn unit.

Chapter 3     57
Criterion Given one positive exemplar (an accurate match) and two nonexemplars
(nonmatching stimuli), children will match identical exemplars of the
target items, rotated across gustatory, visual, olfactory, and tactile senses
until they achieve standard mastery criterion (typically 90% across 2
sessions). Once the child has met the long-term objective, you may
return to the full schedule of subject-area lessons. The rate of learning
should have accelerated such that children have significantly reduced the
numbers of learn units required to master instruction.

In the studies we have conducted to date, children’s levels of observing responses

have been shown to increase across the areas targeted when this protocol is implemented
(Greer, Keohane, Ackerman, et al., 2006). After completion of the sensory matching
protocol, children are often able to master new skills, including pointing and echoing.
We also assume that the steps required for the prelistener level of verbal capability have
now been achieved, and the child is ready to begin the next set of protocols as he moves
toward a more comprehensive listener status. (See Greer & Ross, 2008, for additional
information on the sensory matching protocol.) The original focus of this procedure was
simply to develop a capacity for sameness, but we found that the procedure frequently had
collateral effects on observing responses. We do not yet know why this appears to be the
case for some children and not others.

Generalized Imitation as the Next Step

The acquisition of imitation skills is critical for the development of language and social
repertoires (Rogers & Pennington, 1991). Baer, Peterson, and Sherman (1967) defined
imitation as a behavior that closely follows another individual’s behavior in which the
form is controlled by the behavior of other individuals. For example, a child who imi-
tates will likely clap his hands when a model claps his hands if the response has been
directly trained. Imitation is a see-and-do relationship, which involves a point-to-point
correspondence between behavior of the model and the behavior of the observer (Greer
& Ross, 2008). Generalized imitation is present when a child imitates novel behavior
without direct reinforcement of that particular response. Generalized imitation, unlike
observational learning, is the result of direct reinforcement of a class of responding and
is not controlled by the observation of the contingencies experienced by another (Greer,
Singer-Dudek, & Gautreaux, 2006). Generalized imitation thus involves the continued
performance of a response for which the child has never received reinforcement (Brigham
& Sherman, 1968). Once a child has acquired generalized imitation, he does not need to
be explicitly taught each motor action separately with response prompts. For example, a
child may sit down, clap his hands, and wave bye-bye once he has learned the behavior
of imitating—each response does not need to be explicitly shaped. Generalized imita-
tion can thus be regarded as a higher-order operant (Greer & Ross, 2008). A teacher can
simply demonstrate a behavior and then teach the relevant antecedent and consequent
relations that are needed to teach a new operant.

58    Derived Relational Responding

 Much research has been devoted to directly taught imitation and generalized imi-
tation in both typically developing children and children with developmental disabili-
ties. Typically developing children at age four have shown generalized imitation skills
(Baer & Deguchi, 1985), but infants of one and two years of age have not (Horne &
Erjavic, 2007). Children with severe developmental delays often have deficits in their imi-
tative repertoires. Research over the past few decades has identified successful tactics to
teach imitative responses to such children. These include simultaneous stimulus prompts
(Wolery, Holcombe, Billings, & Vassilaros, 1993) and shaping procedures (Garcia, Baer,
& Firestone, 1971). These tactics are often successful in teaching an explicitly defined
set of responses. For some children such strategies lead to the development of general-
ized imitation, but for other children such techniques are often tedious and unsuccessful
because the class of responding or higher-order operant has not been formed.
In our schools we use learn units to measure teacher and child responses. Learn
units result in immediate consequences in the form of reinforcement for correct responses
and correction for incorrect responses. The learn unit occasions the likelihood of future
correct responses. In many cases learn units combined with the above-mentioned strate-
gies do not result in generalized imitation. For example, we may teach children to imitate
the following set of actions to mastery using the learn unit: stand up, clap hands, touch
head, and wave. Even though the children are explicitly taught these responses, they may
not imitate novel actions, such as sit down, tap lap, and touch shoulders, which would
be indicative of generalized imitation. Children who do not display generalized imitation
repertoires are considered prelisteners. Imitation and generalized imitation are two of the
five basic attention programs taught in our schools. They are prerequisites for learning
basic listener responding. Until a child acquires listener literacy (Greer, Chavez-Brown,
Nirgudkar, Stolfi, & Rivera-Valdes, 2005), he will not achieve more-advanced develop-
mental milestones. Listener literacy includes the ability for one’s behavior to be governed
by the speaker behavior of others and results in a greater degree of independence for the
child (Greer, 2002).

The Mirror Protocol

Pereira-Delgado, Greer, and Speckman-Collins (2006) evaluated the use of a mirror
in the emergence of generalized imitation. In the first experiment, the participants were
three- and four-year-old children diagnosed with developmental disabilities who had
acquired numerous motor actions through direct learn-unit presentation combined with
various other instructional tactics. However, the children did not show generalized imita-
tion during unreinforced test trials. The intervention consisted of teaching the children to
imitate teacher actions using a mirror, in which the child faced the mirror and the teacher
sat behind the child. Learn-unit presentations were used throughout the mirror proce-
dure, where the child was required to look in the mirror to observe the teacher’s presenta-
tion of a given motor action. The target behavior included the child modeling or copying
the teacher’s motor actions with a point-to-point correspondence. We found that, after
being taught a set of four previously acquired motor actions in the mirror to mastery,
the participants acquired generalized imitation. In the second experiment, the partici-
pants were also three- and four-year-old children with developmental delays. However,

Chapter 3     59
these children were only taught a few motor actions directly. Test sessions for generalized
imitation included a specified set of twenty different motor actions that were not taught
during instruction (for example, tap fingers on desk, rub hands together, lift up one leg).
Subsequently, the mirror procedure was implemented to determine if the children would
acquire generalized imitation. The participants were closely matched based on levels of
verbal behavior with peers who did not receive the mirror procedure. The findings paral-
leled the results of the first experiment; moreover, the matched peers who did not receive
the mirror intervention did not acquire generalized imitation even when the numbers of
learn units were controlled for.
The results of both experiments can be explained in terms of the correspondence
between “see” and “do,” a theory suggested by Catania (1998) as something that could
be established using a mirror. It seems plausible that the opportunities the children had
to view their responses in the mirror enhanced this see-and-do correspondence. Prior
research suggests that deficits in imitation may result when an individual is not able to
observe a visible endpoint (Meltzoff & Moore, 1983). For example, a child may have no
difficulty imitating clapping because the response is visible to him. Touching one’s head,
however, may be more difficult for him to imitate because the response is out of the
child’s sight. The mirror provides children with the opportunity to see their responses. As
noted previously, prior research has found that children with disabilities typically require
an extensive amount of shaping to develop imitation of discrete behavior, yet this does not
guarantee that they will acquire generalized imitation. For example, Baer and colleagues
(1967) found that children with developmental disabilities did not acquire generalized
imitation until their imitative repertoire consisted of at least forty to sixty directly trained
imitative responses! The mirror protocol, outlined in table 3.7, has shown promise in
establishing generalized imitation skills efficiently and expediently.

Table 3.7. Generalized Imitation

through the Mirror Protocol

Rationale If the child does not show generalized imitation, use this protocol.
Long-Term Given a set of 20 unreinforced test trials, which consist of novel fine
Objective and/or gross motor actions presented by the instructor, the child will
imitate these actions with 80% accuracy for 1 session.

Materials A full-length unbreakable mirror measuring approximately 13.5 by 50

inches is used for this protocol. Note: Breakable mirrors may be hazard-
ous to the health of children and professionals.
Special Note For the probe sessions, reserve a set of 20 novel motor actions that are
not in the student’s repertoire (do not teach these actions in the mirror).
For the teaching sessions with the mirror, if the child has mastered
several directly taught actions prior to the implementation of this proto-
col, teach these previously mastered actions in the mirror; otherwise, you
can teach novel actions in the mirror (not part of the probes).

60    Derived Relational Responding

 Ensure that the child is looking at the mirror and not at the teacher
by pointing to the mirror as part of the antecedent during instructional
sessions. Suspend all other instructional programs on imitation.

General Conduct unconsequated probes (20 novel actions) directly facing the
Procedure student (do not use the mirror). Begin with the first short-term objective
of 4 target actions to be taught in the mirror using 20-learn-unit ses-
sions until criterion is achieved. Conduct a post-probe session for novel
actions. Continue with a new short-term objective of 4 novel target
actions to be taught in the mirror until generalized imitation is estab-
lished or the long-term objective is achieved during the probe sessions.
Criterion 90% correct learn units for two consecutive sessions for teaching actions
in the mirror. 80% correct trials for probes for one session, which is the
LTO for this protocol.

Research to a Theory of Verbal Development

Dinsmoor (1985) noted that greater observing and attending to specific environmental
stimuli resulted in an increase in control over behavior by those stimuli. In this chapter
we have presented what we believe to be strong evidence of the establishment of children’s
observing responses as a result of the implementation of the conditioning procedures and
protocols described. After implementation of these protocols, the children with whom
we have worked have advanced to higher levels of verbal capability. We also believe that
the evidence illustrating the efficacy of these protocols presents a more complete view of
the foundations of verbal behavior. In conclusion, we submit that the role of the listener
as observer and particularly the interrelationships among listener, listener-speaker, and
speaker-as-own-listener functions are the foundations basic to the development of early
language capabilities (Greer & Keohane, 2005).

References
Baer, D. M. (1983). Can you decode a code? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 138.
Baer, D. M., & Deguchi, H. (1985). Generalized imitation from a radical-behavioral
viewpoint. In S. Reiss & R. Bootzin (Eds.), Theoretical issues in behavior therapy. New
York: Academic Press.
Baer, D. M., Peterson, R. F., & Sherman, J. A. (1967). The development of imitation by
reinforcing behavioral similarity to a model. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 10, 405–416.
Brigham, T. A., & Sherman, A. J. (1968). An experimental analysis of verbal imitation in
preschool children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 151–158.
Catania, A. C. (1998). Learning (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Chapter 3     61
Collier, C. K., & Bitetti-Capatides, J. (1979). Positive behavioral contrast in three-month-
old infants on multiple conjugate reinforcement schedules. Journal of Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 32, 15–27.
Darcheville, J. C., Madelain, L., Buquet, C. Charlier, J., & Miossec, Y. (1999). Operant
conditioning of the visual smooth pursuit in young infants. Behavioural Processes, 46,
131–139.
DeCasper, A. J., & Fifer, W. P. (1980). Of human bonding: Newborns prefer their
mothers’ voices. Science, 208, 1174–1176.
Dinsmoor J. A. (1985). The role of observing and attention in establishing stimulus
control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 365–381.
Donahoe, J. W., & Palmer, D. C. (2004). Learning and complex behavior. Richmond, VA:
Ledgetop Publishing.
Eimas, P. D., Siqueland, E. R., Jusczyk, P., & Vigorito, J. (1971). Speech perception in
early infancy. Science, 171, 303–306.
Epstein, R. R., Lanza, P., & Skinner, B. F. (1980). Symbolic communication between two
pigeons (Columbia livia domestica). Science, 207, 543–545.
Epstein, R. R., Lanza, P., & Skinner, B. F. (1981). “Self-awareness” in the pigeon. Science,
212, 695.
Field, T. (1987). Affective and interactive disturbances in infants. In J. D. Osofsky (Ed.),
Handbook of infant development (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Wiley.
Garcia, E., Baer, D. M., & Firestone, I. (1971). The development of generalized imitation
within topographically determined boundaries. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
4, 101–112.
Greer, R. D. (2002). Designing teaching strategies: An applied behavior analysis system
approach. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Greer, R. D., Chavez-Brown, M., Nirgudkar, A. S., Stolfi, L., & Rivera-Valdes, C. L.
(2005). Acquisition of fluent listener responses and the educational advancement of
young children with autism and severe language delays. European Journal of Behavior
Analysis, 6, 88–126.
Greer, R. D., Dorow, L. G., & Hanser, S. (1973). Music discrimination training and the
music selection behavior of nursery and primary level children. Bulletin of the Council
for Research in Music Education, 35, 30–43.
Greer, R. D., Dorow, L. G., Wachhaus, G., & White, E. (1973). Adult approval and stu-
dents’ music selection behavior. Journal of Research in Music Education, 21, 293–299.
Greer, R. D., & Keohane, D. D. (2005). The evolution of verbal behavior in children.
Behavior Development Bulletin, 1, 31–47.
Greer, R. D., Keohane, D. D., Ackerman, S., O’Sullivan, D., Park, H., Longano, J., et
al. (2006). Sensory matching protocol: Providing children with the capacity for sameness
across the senses as a component of basic listener literacy. Paper presented as part of a

62    Derived Relational Responding

 symposium at the thirty-second annual convention of the Association for Applied
Behavior Analysis International, Atlanta, GA.
Greer, R. D., Keohane, D. D., & Delgado, J. P. (2006). Conditioning adult voices to induce
listener capabilities. Paper presented as part of a symposium at the thirty-second
annual convention of the Association for Applied Behavior Analysis International,
Atlanta, GA.
Greer, R. D., & Ross, D. E. (2008). Verbal behavior analysis: Inducing and expanding new
verbal capabilities in children with language delays. New York: Allyn and Bacon.
Greer, R. D., Singer-Dudek, J., & Gautreaux, G. (2006). Observational learning.
International Journal of Psychology, 41, 486–499.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1999). The social world of children learning to talk. Baltimore,
MD: Paul H. Brooks Publishing.
Hayes, S., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-
Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Kluwer Academic/
Plenum.
Horne, P. J., & Erjavec, M. (2007). Do infants show generalized imitation of gestures?
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 87, 63–87.
Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1996). On the origins of naming and other symbolic behav-
ior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 185–241.
Keohane, D. D., & Greer, R. D. (2005). Teachers’ use of a verbally governed algorithm
and student learning. International Journal of Behavioral and Consultation Therapy, 1,
97–116.
Keohane, D. D., Greer, R. D., & Ackerman, S. A. (2006). The effects of conditioning
visual tracking on the acquisition of instructional objectives by prelisteners and prespeak-
ers. Paper presented as part of a symposium at the thirty-second annual convention of
the Association for Applied Behavior Analysis International, Atlanta, GA.
Krekling, S., Tellevik, J. M., & Nordvik, H. (1989). Tactual learning and cross-modal
transfer of an oddity problem in young children. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 47, 88–96.
Kuhl, P. K., & Meltzoff, A. N. (1996). Infant vocalizations in response to speech: Vocal
imitation and developmental change. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100,
2425–2438.
Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M. K. (1983). Newborn infants imitate adult facial gestures.
Child Development, 59, 702–709.
Mundy, P., Sigman, M., & Kasari, C. (1994). Joint attention, developmental level, and
symptoms presentation in autism. Development and Psycholopathology, 6, 389–401.
Novak, G., & Peláez, M. (2004). Child and adolescent development: A behavioral systems
approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Chapter 3     63
Peláez-Nogueras, M., Gewirtz, J., & Markham, M. (1996). Infant vocalizations are
conditioned both by maternal imitation and motherese speech. Infant Behavior and
Development, 19, 670.
Pereira-Delgado, J., Greer, R. D., & Speckman-Collins, J. (2006). The effects of using a
mirror to induce generalized imitation. Paper presented as part of a symposium at the
thirty-second annual convention of the Association for Applied Behavior Analysis
International, Atlanta, GA.
Premack, D. (2004). Is language the key to human intelligence? Science, 303, 318–320.
Premack, D., & Premack, A. (2003). Original intelligence: Unlocking the mystery of who we
are. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rogers, S. J., & Pennington, B. F. (1991). A theoretical approach to the deficits in infan-
tile autism. Development and Psychopathology, 3, 137–162.
Rosales-Ruiz, J., & Baer, D. M. (1997). Behavioral cusps: A developmental and pragmatic
concept for behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 533–544.
Savage-Rumbaugh, E. S., Rumbaugh, D. M., & Boysen, S. (1978). Science, 201, 64–66.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Skinner, B. F. (1989). The behavior of the listener. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.), Rule-governed
behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control. New York: Plenum Press.
Tsai, H., & Greer, R. D. (2006). Conditioned preference for books and faster acquisition
of textual responses by preschool children. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior
Interventions, 3, 35–60.
Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., Billings, S. S., & Vassilaros, M. A. (1993). Effects of simul-
taneous prompting and instructive feedback. Early Education and Development, 4,
20–31.

64    Derived Relational Responding