Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Stokes & Baer (1977) - An Implicit Technology of Generalization
Stokes & Baer (1977) - An Implicit Technology of Generalization
Traditionally, many theorists have considered Schoenfeld, 1950, p. 168ff.). Thus, generaliza-
generalization to be a passive phenomenon. Gen- tion was something that happened, not some-
eralization was not seen as an operant response thing produced by procedures specific to it.
that could be programmed, but as a description If generalization seemed absent or insignifi-
of a "natural" outcome of any behavior-change cant, it was simply to be assumed that the teach-
process. That is, a teaching operation repeated ing process had managed to maintain unusually
over time and trials inevitably involves varying tight control of the stimuli and responses in-
samples of stimuli, rather than the same set volved, allowing little sampling of their varie-
every time; in the same way, it inevitably evokes ties. This assumption was strongly supported by
and reinforces varying samples of behavior, the well-known techniques of discrimination: by
rather than the same set every time. As a conse- differential reinforcement (in general, by any
quence, it is predictable that newly taught re- differential teaching) of certain stimuli relative
sponses would be controlled not only by the to others, and/or certain responses relative to
stimuli of the teaching program, but by others others, generalization could be programmatically
somewhat resembling those stimuli (Skinner, restricted and diminished to a very small range.
1953, p. 107ff.). Similarly, responses resembling Thus, it was discrimination that was understood
those established directly, yet not themselves ac- as an active process, and a technology of its pro-
tually touched by the teaching procedures, would cedures was developed and practiced extensively.
appear as a result of the teaching (Keller and But generalization was considered the natural
result of failing to practice discrimination's tech-
'Preparation of this paper was supported in part by nology adequately, and thus remained a passive
PHS Training Grant 00183, Program Project Grant
HD 00870, and Research Grant MH 11739. Reprints concept almost devoid of a technology. Never-
may be obtained either from T. F. Stokes, Department theless, in educational practice, and in the devel-
of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, opment of theories aimed at serving both practice
Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2, or D. M. Baer, Depart-
ment of Human Development, University of Kansas, and a better understanding of human function-
Lawrence, Kansas 66045. ing, generalization is equally as important as dis-
349
350 TREVOR F. STOKES and DONALD M. BAER
crimination, and equally deserving of an active scheduling of the same events in those conditions
conceptualization. as had been scheduled in the training conditions.
Generalization has been and doubtless will Thus, generalization may be claimed when no
remain a fundamental concern of applied behav- extratraining manipulations are needed for extra-
ior analysis. A therapeutic behavioral change, training changes; or may be claimed when some
to be effective, often (not always) must occur extra manipulations are necessary, but their cost
over time, persons, and settings, and the effects or extent is clearly less than that of the direct
of the change sometimes should spread to a intervention. Generalization will not be claimed
variety of related behaviors. Even though the when similar events are necessary for similar ef-
literature shows many instances of generaliza- fects across conditions.
tion, it is still frequently observed that when a A technology of generalization programming
change in behavior has been accomplished is almost a reality, despite the fact that until re-
through experimental contingencies, then that cently, it had hardly been recognized as a prob-
change is manifest where and when those contin- lem in its own right. Within common teaching
gencies operate, and is often seen in only transi- practice, there is an informal germ of a technol-
tory forms in other places and at other times. ogy for generalization. Furthermore, within the
The frequent need for generalization of thera- practice of applied behavior analysis (especially
peutic behavior change is widely accepted, but it within the past 5 yr or so), there has appeared
is not always realized that generalization does a budding area of "generalization-promotion"
not automatically occur simply because a behav- techniques. The purpose of this review is to sum-
ior change is accomplished. Thus, the need ac- marize the structure of that generalization litera-
tively to program generalization, rather than ture and its implicit embryonic technology. Some
passively to expect it as an outcome of certain 270 applied behavior analysis studies relevant to
training procedures, is a point requiring both generalization in that discipline were reviewed.2
emphasis and effective techniques (Baer, Wolf, A central core of that literature, consisting of
and Risley, 1968). That such exhortations have some 120 studies, contributes directly to a tech-
often been made has not always ensured that nology of generalization. In general, techniques
researchers in the field have taken serious note designed to assess or to program generalization
of and, therefore, proceeded to analyze ade- can be loosely categorized according to nine
quately the generalization issues of vital concern general headings:
to their programs. The emphasis, refinement, and
elaboration of the principles and procedures that 1. Train and Hope
are meant to explain and produce generalization 2. Sequential Modification
when it does not occur "naturally" is an impor- 3. Introduce to Natural Maintaining Contin-
tant area of unfinished business for applied be- gencies
havior analysis. 4. Train Sufficient Exemplars
The notion of generalization developed here 5. Train Loosely
is an essentially pragmatic one; it does not 6. Use Indiscriminable Contingencies
closely follow the traditional conceptualizations 7. Program Common Stimuli
(Keller and Schoenfeld, 1950; Skinner, 1953).
In many ways, this discussion will sidestep much 2Ninety per cent of the literature reviewed was
of the controversy concerning terminology. Gen- from five journals: Behaviour Research and Therapy;
eralization will be considered to be the occur- Behavior Therapy; Journal of Applied Behavior Anal-
rence of relevant behavior under different, non- ysis; Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental
Psychiatry; and Journal of Experimental Child Psy-
training conditions (i.e., across subjects, settings, chology. Seventy-seven per cent of the literature re-
people, behaviors, and/or time) without the viewed has been published since 1970.
AN IMPLICIT TECHNOLOGY OF GENERALIZATION 35 1
(generalization programming) occurs within that exemplars should undergo training. That is, to
class as well. These data depict one possible limi- program the generalized performance of certain
tation of the generality of generalized imitation, responses across various setting conditions or
as well as pointing to the need to train response persons, training should occur across a (suffi-
exemplars that will adequately reflect the di- cient) number of setting conditions and/or with
versity of the generalization being programmed. various persons. In a similar manner, generaliza-
Children's grammatical development has been tion across responses can be programmed reliably
another prominent area of research dealing with by the training of a number of responses. Diver-
generalized behavior. The concept of response sity of exemplars seems to be the rule to follow
class is again pivotal in these studies, which in pursuit of the maximum generalization. Suffi-
conceptualize the rules of morphological gram- cient diversity to reflect the dimensions of the
mar as equivalent to response class phenomena. desired generalization is a useful tactic. However,
For example, Guess, Sailor, Rutherford, and diversity may also be our greatest enemy: too
Baer (1968) developed the generative correct much diversity of exemplars and not enough
use of plurals by a retarded girl. After teaching (sufficient) exemplars of similar responses may
a number of exemplars of the correct plural make potential gains disproportional to the in-
response, the girl appropriately labelled new vestment of training effort. The optimal combi-
objects in the singular or plural without further nation of sufficient exemplars and sufficient di-
direct training relevant to those objects. Plural versity to yield the most valuable generalization
usage had become a generalized response class; is critically in need of analysis. Is the best pro-
the morphological rule had been established. cedure to train many exemplars with little diver-
Schumaker and Sherman (1970) rewarded three sity at the outset, and then expand the diversity
retarded children for the correct production of to include dimensions of the desired generaliza-
past- and present-tense forms of verbs. As past- tion? Or is it a more productive endeavor to
and present-tense forms of verbs within an in- train fewer exemplars that represent a greater
flectional class were modified, there occurred a diversity, and persist in the training until gen-
generalized usage of untrained verbs to similar eralization emerges'?
tense forms.
There has been considerable research to estab-
lish the importance of the training of sufficient 5. Train Loosely
response exemplars. A survey of these (approxi- One relatively simple technique can be con-
mately 60) studies shows that the number of ceptualized as merely the negation of discrimi-
exemplars found to be "sufficient" for a desirable nation technique. That is, teaching is conducted
level and durability of generalization varies with relatively little control over the stimuli
widely, probably determined primarily by the presented and the correct responses allowed, so
nature of the task and the subject's prior skills as to maximize sampling of relevant dimensions
relevant to it. Most of this research was con- for transfer to other situations and other forms
cerned with the development of motor and vocal of the behavior. A formal example of this most
imitations, and the beginning development of often informal technique was provided by
grammar and syntax. The development of ques- Schroeder and Baer (1972), who taught vocal
tion-asking and instruction-following is also well imitation skills to retarded children in both of
represented. two ways, one emphasizing tight restriction of
In conclusion, examination of the sufficient the vocal skills being learned at the moment
exemplar research points to a significant (and (serial training of vocal imitations), and the
long-familiar) generalization-programming pro- other allowing much greater range of stimuli
cedure: a number of stimulus and/or response within the current problem (concurrent training
358 TREVOR F. STOKES and DONALD M. BAER
of imitations). The latter method was charac- cannot discriminate in which settings a response
terized repeatedly by greater generalization to will be reinforced or not reinforced. A potential
as-yet-untaught vocal imitation problems, thus approximation to such a condition was presented
affirming "loose" teaching techniques as a con- in a study by Schwarz and Hawkins (1970).
tributor to wider generalization. In that experiment, the behavior of a sixth-grade
It will be appreciated that the literature of the child was videotaped during math and spelling
field contains very few examples of this type. classes. Later, after each school day had ended,
Researchers always have attempted to maintain the child was shown the tape of the math class
thorough control and careful restriction and and awarded reinforcers according to how often
standardization of their teaching procedures, good posture, absence of face-touching, and ap-
primarily to allow easy subsequent interpretation propriate voice-loudness were evident on that
of the nature of their (successful) teaching tech- tape. Although reinforcers were awarded only
niques. Yet the import of this technique is that on the basis of behaviors displayed during the
careful management of teaching techniques to a math class, desirable improvements were ob-
precisely repetitive handful of stimuli or formats served during the spelling class as well. In that
may, in fact, correspondingly restrict generaliza- reinforcement was delayed, this technique must
tion of the lessons being learned. The ultimate have made it difficult for the child to discriminate
force of this recommendation remains to be seen. in which class the behaviors were critical for
What seems required is programmatic research earning reinforcement. In other words, the gen-
aimed at assessing the generalization character- eralized success of the study may well be at-
istics of lessons taught under careful, restricted tributable to the partly indiscriminable nature
conditions, relative to similar lessons taught of the reinforcement contingency.
under looser, more variable conditions. In general, it may be suspected that delayed
reinforcement often will have the advantage of
making the times and places in which the con-
6. Use Indiscriminable Contingencies tingency actually operates indiscriminable to the
Intermittent schedules of reinforcement have subject. However, this advantage is an advantage,
been shown repeatedly to be particularly resistant by hypothesis, primarily for the goal of general-
to extinction, relative to continuous schedules ization. Otherwise, delayed reinforcement would
(Ferster and Skinner, 1957). Resistance to extinc- often be considered an inefficient technique, most
tion may be regarded as a form of generaliza- especially so for the initial development of a new
tion-generalization across time subsequent to skill. Indeed, it may be exactly in the realm of
learning. The essential feature of intermittent disadvantaged persons such as retarded children
schedules may be their unpredictability-the that the usual inefficiency of delayed reinforce-
impossibility of discriminating reinforcement oc- ment may seem the most severe handicap to its
casions from nonreinforcement occasions until use. However, its potential for fostering general-
after the fact. Thus, if contingencies of reinforce- ization suggests strongly that further research be
ment or punishment, or the setting events that invested in this procedure (and any others that
mark the presence or absence of those contingen- make reinforcement contingencies properly in-
cies, are made indiscriminable, then generaliza- discriminable), to develop methods of applying
tion may well be observed. it perhaps only after the initial development of a
In generalization, behavior occurs in settings in new skill, in the interests of promoting gen-
which it will not be reinforced, just as it does in eralization.
settings in which it will be reinforced. Then, the Less than a dozen studies of generalization
analogue to an intermittent schedule, extended interpretable as cases of indiscriminable rein-
to settings, is a condition in which the subject forcement contingencies can be found in the
AN IMPLICIT TECHNOLOGY OF GENERALIZATION 359
literature. Kazdin (1973), for example, showed frequently with the subject with whom general-
that teacher attention to one retarded child was ization was evidenced. Thus, with this subject,
responded to by another child as if it were rein- punishment of the generalization response oc-
forcement for on-task behavior. Indeed, the curred more frequently when destructive behav-
onlooker reacted with increased on-task behavior, ior was punished. Unfortunately, it was not
even when the teacher attended to the target determined how often the self-biting occurred
child's off-task behavior. Possibly, prior experi- at times not simultaneous with the destructive
ence with reinforcement contingent on the peers' behavior. Therefore, the schedule of punishment
on-task behavior was sufficient to make all future for self-biting was not established, i.e., whether
praise (contingent or not) discriminative for on- biting occurred only when destructive behavior
task behavior. In other words, with sufficient occurred and, therefore, always met the timeout
prior experience, the onlooker may have stopped contingency. In this example (which was not
observing the contingency in which the rein- intended to be a careful analysis of the indis-
forcement operated and responded only to the criminable reinforcement concept), not only was
reinforcing stimulus' presence, making the con- the reinforcement contingency somewhat diffi-
tingency functionally indiscriminable. cult to discriminate, but the two behaviors (de-
Generalization across subjects has similarly structive and self-destructive responses) also may
been reported by Broden, Bruce, Mitchell, Carter, well have been only somewhat differentiated by
and Hall (1970) in a classroom of culturally the subject.
disadvantaged children. When positive teacher Thus, preventing the ready discrimination of
attention was given for one child's attention to contingencies is a generalization-programming
academic work, the attending of a peer also in- technique worthy of application and research.
creased. This generalization was also a probable Perhaps a random or haphazard delivery of re-
function of the cueing properties of teacher rein- inforcement will (if luck or good judgement
forcement. However, the generalization observed prevails) function to modify targetted behavior
may also have been due to the manipulation of as well as behavior occurring in proximal time
natural social consequences received by the non- or space. Even noncontingent reinforcement,
target child through peer attention, or may have delivered at the outset of an intervention pro-
been caused by a slight increase in the amount gram, may retard initial effects, but may work
of teacher attention to the nontarget child. These to later advantage in generalization outcomes.
effects deserve further systematic evaluation be- Finally, Kazdin and Polster (1973) showed
cause of their relevance to the classroom prac- once again the usefulness of intermittent sched-
tices of many teachers who strive to instruct ules to delay subsequent extinction, relative to
effectively but are unable to devote extensive continuous schedules of reinforcement. Social
time to individual children. interaction by two retardates was reinforced with
Pendergrass (1972) showed that timeout could tokens. After establishing social interaction, one
be employed to decrease the destructive behavior subject received continuous reinforcement and
of two retarded children. With one subject, de- the other, intermittent reinforcement. During
creased rates were also observed with another extinction, only the subject who received inter-
response (self-biting) which was sometimes mittent reinforcement continued to interact so-
chained to the destructive behavior, but not cially with peers. However, these results may
itself subjected to contingent timeout. However, simply reflect different extinction rates by two
with the second subject, generalization to a sec- subjects. The research was essentially a group
ond response (autistic jerking movement) was study where N 1. Adequate single-subject ex-
not observed. Analysis of the data revealed that perimental control was lacking. Therefore, repli-
the two behaviors occurred simultaneously more cation of these procedures would be desirable.
360 TREVOR F. STOKES and DONALD M. BAER
eralization setting. Autistic children were re-
7. Program Common Stimuli warded for imitation and instruction-following
The passive approach to generalization de- in a training setting. Four of their 10 subjects
scribed earlier need not be a completely imprac- then did not exhibit generalization to a different
tical one. If it is supposed that generalization setting. Therefore, to program for this general-
will occur, if only there are sufficient stimulus ization, various aspects of the training procedures
components occurring in common in both the (e.g., hand movement by therapist) or physical
training and generalization settings, then a rea- training environment (e.g., table and chairs)
sonably practical technique is to guarantee that were systematically introduced to the generaliza-
common and salient stimuli will be present in tion setting to control generalization. Making
both. One predictor of the salience of a stimulus the experimental setting more closely resemble
to be chosen for this role is its already established the regular classroom (generalization setting)
function for other important behaviors of the was the programming procedure employed by
subject. Koegel and Rincover (1974). They decreased
Children's peers may represent peculiarly the teacher-to-student ratio in the experimental
suitable candidates for a stimulus common to setting from 1-to-i to 1-to-8. After these special
both training and generalization settings. An programming conditions were instituted, there
example has been provided by Stokes and Baer was increased performance on previously learned
(1976). In their study, two children exhibiting and new behaviors learned in the classroom.
serious learning disabilities were recruited to Walker and Buckley (1972) programmed gener-
learn several word-recognition skills. One child alization of the effects of remedial training of
was taught these skills and concurrently shown social and academic classroom behavior by estab-
how to teach them to the other child, thus acting lishing common stimuli between the experimen-
as a peer-tutor. It was found that both children tal remedial classroom and the childrens' regular
reliably learned the skills, but that neither gen- classroom by using the same academic materials
eralized them reliably or stably to somewhat dif- in both classrooms.
ferent settings in which the other child usually The literature of this field shows only a hand-
was absent. However, when the peer-tutor was ful of studies deliberately making use of a com-
brought into those settings, then each child simi- mon stimulus in both training and generalization
larly showed greatly increased and stabilized settings. Obviously, this is a technological dimen-
generalization, even though there were never sion urgently in need of thorough development.
any consequences for generalization. Similar The use of peers as the common stimulus has
demonstrations have been provided by Johnston much to recommend it as a practical and natural
and Johnston (1972) for the skill of speech technique. To what extent peers need to partici-
articulation. In that study, peers were rewarded pate in the training setting has not yet been
for correct monitoring of the subjects' articula- determined, although the absence of generaliza-
tion. Generalization of correct articulation oc- tion sometimes shown when peers are present
curred only when the "monitoring" peer was in nontraining settings, suggests that peers not
present. Unfortunately, it was not determined involved in a training setting will not likely
clearly whether generalization was evidenced be- acquire sufficient discriminative function to con-
cause of the discriminative properties of the trol generalized responding. The use of common
peers' presence in both settings, or whether the physical stimuli is in even greater need of sys-
peers actively continued their monitoring in the tematic research. A common stimulus approach
generalization setting. to generalization would encourage the incorpora-
Rincover and Koegel (1975) have also incor- tion into training settings of (naturally occur-
porated functional training stimuli into the gen- ring) physical stimuli that are frequently promi-
AN IMPLICIT TECHNOLOGY OF GENERALIZATION 361
nent or functional in nontraining environments. was restricted to true reports, the reports then
If these stimuli are well chosen, and can be made became mediators of play behavior. The lesson
functional and salient in the training procedures, generalized, such that after several sequential
then generalization may thereby be programmed. experiences with these procedures, the children
then used reports about play as mediators, even
without reinforcement being restricted to only
8. Mediate Generalization true reports. Israel and O'Leary (1973) used
Mediated generalization is well known as a essentially the same paradigm to compare the
theoretical mechanism explaining generalization effects of having children report first what they
of highly symbolic learnings (Cofer and Foley, would play with later, in contrast to having them
1942). In essence, it requires establishing a re- report after play what they had done (the Risley
sponse as part of the new learning that is likely and Hart method); they found that reinforcing
to be utilized in other problems as well, and will postreports (when they were true) produced more
constitute sufficient commonality between the actual behavior (the next day) than reinforcing
original learning and the new problem to result the actual behavior when it agreed with the
in generalization. The most commonly used earlier promise to perform it. This technique has
mediator is language, apparently. However, the been extended subsequently to the case of social
deliberate application of language to accomplish skills, specifically sharing and praising between
generalization is rare in the literature reviewed, young children (Rogers-Warren and Baer, 1976).
and correspondingly little is known about what In that case, modelling was added, such that the
aspects of a language response make for best young children would have a thorough chance
mediation. to learn the nature of the relatively complex
A sophisticated analysis of mediated general- responses at issue.
ization was conducted by Risley and Hart ( 1968), Obviously, verbal mediation can easily fail,
who taught preschool children to report at the most especially in those situations in which the
end of play on their play-material choices. Men- verbal mediators have little meaning (i.e., tightly
tion of a given choice was reinforced with snacks, restricted discriminative value) for the subjects.
which produced increased mentioning of that It is commonplace to find children agreeing to a
choice, but no change in the children's actual query (e.g., about whether they praised or shared)
use of that play-material. When reinforcement without any knowledge of what that must entail
was restricted to true reports of play-material in actual behavior. In the case of retarded chil-
choices, however, the children then changed their dren, it might be particularly true that the ability
play behavior (the next day) so that when to use verbal responses as mediators would lag
queried about that play, they could truthfully behind that of normal children using the same
report on their use of the specified play material language responses. It may be reasonable to
and earn reinforcement. Control over any choice suggest that in the development of language-
of play materials proved possible with this tech- training programs, systematic attention be given
nique, which placed teaching contingencies not to the training of language skills sufficiently well
on the play, but on a potential mediator (verbal elaborated to function as mediators of nonverbal
report) of that play behavior. That the reports behavior. Language is a response, of course; it is
were only potential mediators was apparent in also, equally obviously, a stimulus to the speaker
the early stages of the study, when the children as well as to the listener. Thus, it meets perfectly
readily reported (untruly) their use of play ma- the logic of a salient common stimulus, to be
terials with no corresponding actual behavior carried from any training setting to any general-
with those materials; at that stage, they earned ization setting that the child may ever enter.
reinforcement even so. When the reinforcement It also perfectly exemplifies the essence of the
362 TREVOR F. STOKES and DONALD M. BAER
active generalization approach recommended and maintenance, especially when formal inter-
earlier. vention manipulations have ceased to operate.
The mediation of generalization is also exem- The effects of accompanying procedures should
plified in the behavior analysis research of self- be experimentally separated from self-control
control and self-management procedures. That effects, and the role of each of the various self-
is, self-control procedures such as self-recording, control tactics (Glynn et al., 1973) should be
taught as part of an intervention program, may individually analyzed. The potential of self-
function to promote generalization: such tech- mediated generalization is apparent, but its im-
niques are easy to transport and may be em- plications and practical utility still remain to be
ployed readily to facilitate responding under assessed.
generalization conditions. Some research that has
employed any or all of the various tactics of self- 9. Train "To Generalize"
assessment, self-recording, self-determination of If generalization is considered as a response
reinforcement, and/or self-administration of re- itself, then a reinforcement contingency may be
inforcement (Glynn, Thomas, and Shee, 1973), placed on it, the same as with any other operant.
has also displayed maintenance and generaliza- Informally, teachers often do this when they urge
tion of behavior change; however, the correla- a student who has been taught one example of
tion is not perfect. a general principle to "see" another example
Broden, Hall, and Mitts (1971) reported that as "the same thing". (In principle, they are also
after an eighth-grade girl experienced self- attempting to make use of language as a medi-
recording of study behavior and teacher praise ator of generalization, relying on the supposed
for improved study, her study behavior main- characteristics of words like "same" to accom-
tained at a high level for a recorded three weeks. plish the generalization.) Common observation
Although the individual effects of the self-record- suggests that the method often fails, and that
ing and praise were not determined, it is possible when it does succeed, little extrinsic reinforce-
that the self-recording procedures contributed ment is offered as a consequence. A more formal
significantly to this generalization. example of the technique was seen in a study
Drabman, Spitalnik, and O'Leary (1973) by Goetz and Baer (1973), in which three pre-
taught disruptive children to match their teach- school children were taught to generalize the
er's evaluations of their appropriate classroom response of making block forms (in blockbuild-
behavior. Tokens were dispensed for appropriate ing play). Descriptive social reinforcement was
classroom behavior and accurate matching. Dis- offered only for every different form the child
ruptive classroom behavior decreased and was made, i.e., contingent on every first appearance
maintained at low levels during a 12-day phase of any blockbuilding form within a session, but
when tokens were not dispensed for self-record- not for any subsequent appearances of that form.
ing accuracy. Generalized behavior improvement Thus, the child was rewarded for moving along
was also evident during a 15-min no-token the generalization gradient underlying block-
period within the experimental hour. These form inventions, and never for staying at any
changes were possibly a function of the close one point. In general, the technique succeeded, in
temporal proximity of the token periods, which that the children steadily invented new block
frequently immediately preceded or followed forms while this contingency was in use. Thus,
the generalization period. there exists the possibility of programming rein-
The role of self-control procedures in medi- forcement specifically, perhaps only, for move-
ating generalization has often been proposed. ment along the generalization gradient desired.
Research would do well to examine the contri- In largely unspecified ways, perhaps two other
bution of self-control tactics in generalization studies exemplify this logic. Herbert and Baer
AN IMPLICIT TECHNOLOGY OF GENERALIZATION 363
(1972), for example, taught two mothers of technique that is being practiced when a client
deviant children to give social reinforcement is taught to relax in a somewhat anxiety-arousing
only to their children's appropriate behaviors, situation, and reinforced (socially) for doing so;
but taught the mothers from the outset to judge and then is instructed to relax in a somewhat
all behavior according to criteria they helped more powerful anxiety-arousing situation, etc.
to develop, rather than attack only a few speci- That is, systematic desensitization to a heirarchy
fied child responses. These mothers learned a of stimuli may be analyzed as reinforcing not just
generalized skill because they applied correct relaxation, but also generalization along an al-
social contingencies to categories that included ready constructed generalization gradient (cf.
virtually all appropriate child behavior likely to Yates, 1970, p. 64ff.).
occur. Behavior changes were maintained at 20
and 24 weeks after completion of formal train-
ing. Similarly, Parsonson, Baer, and Baer (1974) CONCLUSION
taught two teachers of retarded children to apply The structure of the generalization literature
generalized correct social contingencies to all and its implicit embryonic technology has been
likely appropriate and inappropriate behaviors summarized. The most frequent treatments of
of preschool retarded children. These effects were generalization are also the least analytical-those
also durable over several months. Apparently described as Train and Hope and Sequential
generalized changes were produced in these stud- Modification. Included in the category of Train
ies by Herbert and Baer and Parsonson et al., and Hope were those studies where the potential
but the extent and quality of that generalization for generalization had been recognized, its pres-
was not quantified as such. ence or absence noted, but no particular effort
Very few studies of this type are found in the was expended to accomplish generalization. By
literature of applied behavior analysis, probably contrast, some limited programming was imple-
because of the preference of behaviorists to con- mented in the Sequential Modification research.
sider generalization as an outcome of behavioral In these studies, given an absence of reliable
change, rather than as a behavior itself. Ulti- generalization, procedures to effect changes were
mately, this behavioristic stance may well prove instituted directly in every nongeneralized condi-
durable and consistent. Meanwhile, it is worth tion. Although contributing significantly to our
hypothesizing that "to generalize" may be treated understanding of the generalization of behavior-
as if it were an operant response, and reinforced change programs, these studies are not examples
as such, simply to see what useful results occur. of the programming of generalization.
Consequently, one other technique deserves Seven categories were discussed that directly
discussion: the systematic use of instructions to relate to a technology of generalization. First,
facilitate generalization. Thus, if a behavior is the potential role of Natural Maintaining Con-
taught and generalization is not displayed, the tingencies was discussed. According to this tactic,
least expensive of all techniques is to tell the generalization may be programmed by suitable
subject about the possibility of generalization trapping manipulations, where responses are in-
and then ask for it. If that generalization then troduced to natural reinforcement communities
occurs, it may well be referred to as "instructed that refine and maintain those skills without
generalization". If the effects of that instruction further therapeutic intervention. The Training
are themselves to become generalized (yielding of Sufficient Exemplars is numerically the most
a "generalized generalizer"?), then reinforcement extensive area of programming: generalization
of the generalized behavior, on a suitable sched- to untrained stimulus conditions and to un-
ule, might well be prudent, at least at first. Per- trained responses is programmed by the training
haps it is simply a very elaborate version of this of sufficient exemplars of those stimulus condi-
364 TREVOR F. STOKES and DONALD M. BAER
tions or responses. Train Loosely is a program- 4. Make unclear the limits of training contin-
ming technique in which training is conducted gencies; in particular, conceal, when pos-
with relatively little control over the stimuli and sible, the point at which those contingen-
responses involved, and generalization is thereby cies stop operating, possibly by delayed
enhanced. To invoke the tactic of Indiscrimi- reinforcement.
nable Contingencies, the contingencies of re- 5. Use stimuli that are likely to be found in
inforcement or punishment, or the setting events generalization settings in training settings
marking the presence or absence of those con- as well; in particular, use peers as tutors.
tingencies, are deliberately made less predictable, 6. Reinforce accurate self-reports of desirable
so that it becomes difficult to discriminate rein- behavior; apply self-recording and self-
forcement occasions from nonreinforcement oc- reinforcement techniques whenever possi-
casions. Common Stimuli may be employed in ble.
generalization programming by incorporating 7. When generalizations occur, reinforce at
into training settings social and physical stimuli least some of them at least sometimes, as
that are salient in generalization settings, and if "to generalize" were an operant response
that can be made to assume functional or obvious class.
roles in the training setting. Mediated General-
ization requires establishing a response as part There are many examples of generalization
of new learning that is likely to be utilized in and nongeneralization of behavior changes. The
other problems as well, and thus result in gener- fact that apparently unprogrammed generaliza-
alization. The final technique, Train "To Gener- tion has been demonstrated (particularly across
alize", involves reinforcing generalization itself time) is valuable. It heralds a practicality de-
as if it were an explicit behavior. These program- sirable in any technology of behavior: that every
ming techniques should be researched further one of a subjects' responses, in every setting,
and usefully applied in programs in which gen- with every experimenter, and at every conceiv-
eralization is relevant. able time does not need to meet specific treat-
This list of generalized tactics conceals within ment consequences for that program to accom-
itself a much smaller list of specific tactics. These plish and maintain important behavior changes.
specific tactics can be presented as a small pic- Alternatively, the fact that generalization is not
ture of the generalization technology in its pres- always observed and durability is not inevitable
ent most pragmatic form, not only to offer a set means that there is hope for behavior modifica-
of what-to-do possibilities, but also to emphasize tion: behavior can always be modified and
how very small the current technology is and changes are not necessarily irreversible. That is,
how much development it requires: once behavior has been modified, there is still
the possibility of reconditioning if changes are
1. Look for a response that enters a natural undesirable or inappropriate, or if new inappro-
community; in particular, teach subjects to priate behaviors develop. If both appropriate
cue their potential natural communities to and inappropriate behavior changes were to per-
reinforce their desirable behaviors. sist and prove irreversible, it would presage the
2. Keep training more exemplars; in particu- demise of any technology of behavioral inter-
lar, diversify them. vention. This occurrence of nongeneralization
3. Loosen experimental control over the stim- also underlines the need to develop a technology
uli and responses involved in training; in of generalization, so that programming will be
particular, train different examples concur- a fundamental component of any procedures
rently, and vary instructions, SDs, social when durability and generalization of behavior
reinforcers, and backup reinforcers. changes are desirable.
AN IMPLICIT TECHNOLOGY OF GENERALIZATION 365
A most important question is prompted by an be descriptive only of the active regard of re-
examination of the previous research: does gen- searchers and practitioners.
eralization ever occur without programming?
In the above research, generalization was not al- REFERENCES
ways evident. In fact, the highly discriminated Allen, G. J. Case study: Implementation of behav-
effects of some operant programs were some- ior modification techniques in summer camp set-
times documented. We have seen that the behav- tings. Behavior Therapy, 1973, 4, 570-575.
ior analysis literature describes various programs Ayllon, T. and Azrin, N. H. The token economy.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968.
that have shown that generalization may be pro- Azrin, N. H., Sneed, T. J., and Fox, R. M. Dry-bed:
moted or programmed by particular intervention A rapid method of eliminating bedwetting (enu-
techniques. It seems reasonable to suggest, then, resis) of the retarded. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 1973, 11, 427-434.
that many of the successful Train-and-Hope Baer, D. M., Peterson, R. F., and Sherman, J. A. The
examples cited above may be undiagnosed in- development of imitation by reinforcing behav-
stances of informal or inadvertent programming ioral similarity to a model. journal of the Experi-
techniques, rather than an absence of program- mental Analysis of Behavior, 1967, 10, 405-416.
Baer, D. M. and Wolf, M. M. The entry into natu-
ming techniques. It cannot be discounted, and is ral communities of reinforcement. In R. Ulrich,
indeed possible, that these generalization exam- T. Stachnik, and J. Mabry (Eds), Control of hu-
ples may simply depict successful programmed man behavior: Volume II. Glenview, Illinois:
Scott, Foresman, 1970. Pp. 319-324.
generalization, and neither the authors of those Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., and Risley, T. R. Some
papers, nor the present authors have recognized current dimensions of applied behavior analysis.
or hypothesized the programming technique. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1,
91-97.
Perhaps the most pragmatic orientation for Bolstad, 0. D. and Johnson, S. M. Self-regulation in
behavior analysts is to assume that generalization the modification of disruptive behavior. Journal
does not occur except through some form of pro- of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1972, 5, 443-454.
gramming. Thus, the best course of action seems Broden, M., Hall, R. V., and Mitts, B. The effect of
self-recording on the classroom behavior of two
to be that of systematic measurement and analy- eighth-grade students. Journal of Applied Behav-
sis of variables that may have been functional in ior Analysis, 1971, 4, 191-199.
any apparently unprogrammed generalization. Broden, M., Bruce, C., Mitchell, M. A., Carter, U.,
and Hall, R. V. Effects of teacher attention on
These analyses should be included as part of all attending behavior of two boys at adjacent desks.
research where "unprogrammed" generalized be- Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1970, 3,
havior changes are evidenced, for discriminated 199-203.
Buehler, R. E., Patterson, G. R., and Furniss, J. M.
behavior changes may well be the rule if gen- The reinforcement of behavior in institutional set-
eralization is not specifically programmed. Such tings. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1966, 4,
analyses, if successful, will contribute to a tech- 157-167.
nology of generalization by further developing Buell, J., Stoddard, P., Harris, F. R., and Baer, D. M.
Collateral social development accompanying rein-
the understanding of critical variables that func- forcement of outdoor play in a preschool child.
tion to produce generalization, and would further Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1,
emphasize the need always to be concerned not 167-173.
Cofer, C. N. and Foley, J. P. Mediated generaliza-
only with generalization issues, but with the vari- tion and the interpretation of verbal behavior: I.
ous techniques that accomplish generalization. Prolegomena. Psychological Review, 1942, 49,
In other words, behavioral research and prac- 513-540.
tice should act as if there were no such animal Drabman, R. S., Spitalnik, R., and O'Leary, K. D.
Teaching self control to disruptive children.
as "free" generalization-as if generalization Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1973, 82, 10-
never occurs "naturally", but always requires 16.
programming. Then, "programmed generaliza- Ferster, C. B. and Skinner, B. F. Schedules of rein-
forcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,
tion" is essentially a redundant term, and snould 1957.
366 TREVOR F. STOKES and DONALD M. BAER
Garcia, E. The training and generalization of a inforcement and response maintenance in extinc-
conversational speech form in nonverbal retardates. tion. Behavior Therapy, 1973, 4, 386-391.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1974, 7, Keller, F. S. and Schoenfeld, W. N. Principles of
137-149. psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,
Garcia, E., Baer, D. M., and Firestone, I. The devel- 1950.
opment of generalized imitation within topo- Kifer, R. E., Lewis, M. A., Green, D. R., and Phillips,
graphically determined boundaries. Journal of E. L. Training predelinquent youths and their
Applied Behavior Analysis, 1971, 4, 101-112. parents to negotiate conflict situations. Journal of
Gelfand, D. M., Gelfand, S., and Dobson, W. R. Applied Behavior Analysis, 1974, 7, 357-364.
Unprogrammed reinforcement of patients behav- Koegel, R. L. and Rincover, A. Treatment of psy-
ior in a mental hospital. Behaviour Research and chotic children in a classroom environment: I.
Therapy, 1967, 5, 201-207. Learning in a large group. Journal of Applied
Glynn, E. L., Thomas, J. D., and Shee, S. M. Behav- Behavior Analysis, 1974, 7, 45-59.
ioral self-control of on-task behavior in an ele- Meichenbaum, D. H., Bowers, K. S., and Ross, R. R.
mentary classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Modification of classroom behavior of institu-
Analysis, 1973, 6, 105-113. tionalized female adolescent offenders. Behaviour
Goetz, E. M. and Baer, D. M. Social control of form Research and Therapy, 1968, 6, 343-353.
diversity and the emergence of new forms in chil- Parsonson, B. S., Baer, A. M., and Baer, D. M. The
dren's blockbuilding. Journal of Applied Behav- application of generalized correct social contin-
ior Analysis, 1973, 6, 105-113. gencies by institutional staff: an evaluation of
Graubard, P. S., Rosenberg, H., and Miller, M. B. the effectiveness and durability of a training pro-
Student applications of behavior modification to gram. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
teachers and environments or ecological ap- 1974, 7, 427-437.
proaches to social deviancy. In E. A. Ramp and Pendergrass, V. E. Timeout from positive reinforce-
B. L. Hopkins (Eds), A new direction for educa- ment following persistent high-rate behavior in
tion: behavior analysis. Lawrence, Kansas: Sup- retardates. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
port and Development Center for Follow 1972, 5, 85-91.
Through, 1971. Pp. 80-101. Redd, W. H. and Birnbrauer, J. S. Adults as dis-
Griffiths, H. and Craighead, W. E. Generalization criminative stimuli for different reinforcement
in operant speech therapy for misarticulation. contingencies with retarded children. Journal of
Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1972, Experimental Child Psychology, 1969, 7, 440-
37, 485-494. 447.
Guess, D., Sailor, W., Rutherford, G., and Baer, D. M. Rincover, A. and Koegel, R. L. Setting generality
An experimental analysis of linguistic develop- and stimulus control in autistic children. Journal
ment: the productive use of the plural morpheme. of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1975, 8, 235-246.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1, Risley, T. R. and Hart, B. M. Developing corre-
297-306. spondence between the nonverbal and verbal be-
Hall, R. V. and Broden, M. Behavior changes in havior of preschool children. Journal of Applied
brain-injured children through social reinforce- Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 267-281.
ment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, Rogers-Warren, A. and Baer, D. M. Correspondence
1967, 5, 463-479. between saying and doing: teaching children to
Herbert, E. W. and Baer, D. M. Training parents share and praise. Journal of Applied Behavior
as behavior modifiers: self-recording of contin- Analysis, 1976, 9, 335-354.
gent attention. Journal of Applied Behavior Anal- Schroeder, G. L. and Baer, D. M. Effects of concur-
ysis, 1972, 5, 139-149. rent and serial training on generalized vocal imi-
Horner, R. D. Establishing use of crutches by a tation in retarded children. Developmental Psy-
mentally retarded spina bifida child. Journal of chology, 1972, 6, 293-301.
Applied Behavior Analysis, 1971, 4, 183-189. Schumaker, J. and Sherman, J. A. Training genera-
Israel, A. C. and O'Leary, K. D. Developing corre- tive verb usage by imitation and reinforcement
spondence between children's words and deeds. procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
Child Development, 1973, 44, 575-581. 1970, 3, 273-287.
Johnston, J. M. and Johnston, G. T. Modification of Schwarz, M. L. and Hawkins, R. P. Application of
consonant speech-sound articulation in young delayed reinforcement procedures to the behavior
children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, of an elementary school child. Journal of Applied
1972, 5, 233-246. Behavior Analysis, 1970, 3, 85-96.
Kazdin, A. E. The effect of vicarious reinforcement Seymour, F. W. and Stokes, T. F. Self-recording in
on attentive behavior in the classroom. Journal of training girls to increase work and evoke staff
Applied Behavior Analysis, 1973, 6, 71-78. praise in an institution for offenders. Journal of
Kazdin, A. E. and Polster, R. Intermittent token re- Applied Behavior Analysis, 1976, 9, 41-54.
AN IMPLICIT TECHNOLOGY OF GENERALIZATION 367
Skinner, B. F. Science and human behavior. New behavior in a "blind" adolescent retardate. Journal
York: Macmillan, 1953. of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1969, 2, 65-77.
Solomon, R. W. and Wahler, R. G. Peer reinforce- Wahler, R. G. Setting generality: some specific and
ment control of classroom problem behavior. general effects of child behavior therapy. Journal
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1973, 6, of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1969, 2, 239-246.
49-56. Walker, H. M. and Buckley, N. K. The use of posi-
Stokes, T. F. and Baer, D. M. Preschool peers as tive reinforcement in conditioning attending be-
mutual generalization-facilitating agents. Behavior havior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
Therapy, 1976, 7, 549-556. 1968, 1, 245-250.
Stokes, T. F., Baer, D. M., and Jackson, R. L. Pro- Yates, A. J. Behavior therapy. New York: John
gramming the generalization of a greeting re- Wiley and Sons, 1970.
sponse in four retarded children. Journal of Ap-
plied Behavior Analysis, 1974, 7, 599-610. Received 22 December 1975.
Stolz, S. B. and Wolf, M. M. Visually discriminated (Final acceptance 3 June 1976.)