Should we Stop Doing Mand and Intraverbal

Training? What do the Data Tell us?

Mark L. Sundberg, Ph.D., BCBA

marksundberg@astound.net
 Introduction
 These are some exciting times in the field of behavior
analysis
 Conferences
 Research
 Certification (4600+ people)
 Training programs (85+)
 Positive press
 ABA: International is growing at a rapid rate
 Membership in ABA: International

Membership in ABA: International

5000

4500

4000

BA Members 3500

3000

2500

2000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Years
 Introduction
• Successful interventions for children with autism are probably
the main cause for the increase in ABA’s numbers
• This success with behavioral interventions comes as no
surprise to many in the field of behavior analysis
• Over 55 years of empirical and clinical research and
applications with the developmentally disabled
• Most of the basic teaching procedures for children with autism
were in place during the 1970s, including mand and intraverbal
training. None of this is “new.”
• Let me hear your voice (1993) by Catherine Maurice brought
widespread attention to behavior analysis
 Introduction
• However, with this success there is some bad news
• Everybody is now an expert in behavior analysis
• Widespread dissemination of behavioral techniques, often by
unqualified people
• Simplifying the concepts and procedures beyond recognition
• Parallels to B-mod and education in the 60s
• “What happened to the promise of behavior modification?”
• Similar concerns for the current popularity of the use of
behavior analysis for the treatment of children with autism
 Introduction
• What constitutes a “behavioral approach” to treatment of children with autism?
• Consumers must be confused because there are so many models out there, often quite
different from each other, but all claiming to be a “behavioral approach”
• DTT
• Lovaas model
• CARD model
• ABA
• Pivotal response training
• VB approach
• CABAS
• Competent learner model
• Natural language paradigm
• Milieu language training
• Incidental teaching
 Introduction
• In addition, there are many • Sensory integration
other approaches and • Weighted jackets
treatments such as... • Deep pressure
• Floor time • Special diets
• RDI • Vitamins
• Son-Rise • Medications
• Holding therapy • Swimming with dolphins
• TEACCH • Decompression chambers
• Secretion • Chelation
• Auditory training • Faciliated communication
 Introduction
• Thanks to the efforts of Dr. Gina Green and others, many of these
“pseudoscientific” approaches have been identified and consumers have been
warned about their ineffectiveness and even potential danger to children.
• However, recently Dr. Green has added the “Verbal Behavior Approach” to
her list of pseudoscientific approaches and suggested that it has similarities to
facilitated communication (ABA, 2005).
• In her recent presentation at the NY-ABA titled “Verbal Behavior;” An
evidence-based technology for autism intervention?” Dr. Green (2005)
concluded “the ‘VB’ approach to autism intervention does not appear to meet
accepted criteria for evidence-based practice or transferable behavioral
technology”
• Others have expresses concern about the dissemination of verbal behavior
procedures. Carr and Firth (2005) stated “little research exists to support such
widespread dissemination (of the VB approach).”
 Introduction
• The purpose of the current presentation is to address the concerns
raised by Dr. Green, Carr and Firth, and others about the
“unwarranted dissemination of the verbal behavior approach” to
language training for children with autism.
• The goal of clarify what constitutes a “verbal behavior approach,”
while demonstrating its empirical foundation, on-going research
agenda, its value to children with autism, and hopefully, to get Dr.
Green to remove verbal behavior from her list of pseudosciences.
 What Constitutes a Verbal Behavior
Approach to Autism Treatment?

• First, I share Dr. Green’s concern for the need for additional
verbal behavior research. I believe this point is uncontroversial.
(Sundberg, 1991: “301 Research topics from Skinner’s book
Verbal Behavior”).
• As of 2003, over 80 of these topics have been addressed
(Sundberg, 2003)
• Research was the primary purpose for starting the journal The
Analysis of Verbal Behavior, now in its 22nd Volume, and
published by ABA: International
• Second, I share Dr. Green’s concern about the improper
dissemination of behavioral concepts and procedures
 What Constitutes a Verbal Behavior
Approach to Autism Treatment?

• The basic teaching procedures consist of the standard methodology

found in applied behavior analysis (e.g., Cooper, Heron, & Heward,
1987).
• Prompting
• Fading
• Pairing
• Modeling
• Shaping
• Chaining
• Differential reinforcement procedures (e.g., DRO, DRI, DRL)
• Intermittent reinforcement procedures (e.g., FR, VR, FI, VI)
 What Constitutes a Verbal Behavior
Approach to Autism Treatment?

• Extinction procedures (e.g., planned ignoring)

• Punishment procedures (e.g., reprimands, time out, overcorrection)
• Generalization
• Discrimination training
• Errorless learning
• Transfer of stimulus control
• Task analysis
• Contingency contracting
• Token economies
 What Constitutes a Verbal Behavior
Approach to Autism Treatment?
• Additional procedural elements include....
• Individualized assessment and intervention program
• Frequent opportunities to respond
• Use of discrete trial teaching
• Incidental & natural environment teaching
• Data collection
• Interspersel techniques
• Behavioral momentum techniques
• Peer and social interaction
• Functional analyses
• On-going analyses of performance by formally trained behavior analysts
What Constitutes a Verbal Behavior
Approach to Autism Treatment?

• These procedures are (to varying degrees) common

to most behavioral intervention programs for children
with autism (e.g., Howard, Sparkman, Cohen, Green,
& Stainlaw, 2005; Koegel & Koegel, 1996; Lovaas,
2003; Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996), and thus
benefit from the same empirical foundation claimed
by those programs.
• But, what theory of language underlies the
assessment and curricula for these discrete trial
programs/ABA program?
 What Constitutes a Verbal Behavior
Approach to Autism Treatment?
• The major difference between the “verbal behavior approach” and
the majority of discrete trial and ABA programs available in the
literature is the conceptual analysis of language that underlies the
assessment and curriculum used in each program
• Most DTT/ABA programs use the traditional linguistic
classification system of expressive and receptive language, and
the associated vernacular concerning language which has its roots
in cognitive psychology
• The verbal behavior approach employs Skinner’s (1957)
functional analysis of language which has its roots in radical
behaviorism
 Skinner’s Analysis of
Verbal Behavior
• Language is learned behavior under the functional control of
environmental contingencies
• “What happens when a man speaks or responds to speech is clearly a
question about human behavior and hence a question to be answered with
the concepts and techniques of psychology as an experimental science of
behavior” (Skinner, 1957, p. 5)
• The analysis of verbal behavior involves the same behavioral principles
and concepts that make up the analysis of nonverbal behavior. No new
principles of behavior are required.
• Chapter 1 of Verbal Behavior is titled “A Functional Analysis of Verbal
Behavior”
• In Chapter 2 he identifies the dependent and independent variables for a
functional analysis of verbal behavior
 Behavior Analysis
(Basic Principles of Operant Behavior)

Stimulus Control (SD) Response Reinforcement

Motivating Operation (MO/EO)
Punishment
Extinction
Conditioned reinforcement
Conditioned punishment
Intermittent reinforcement
 Skinner’s Analysis of
Verbal Behavior
• The traditional linguistic classification of words, sentences, and
phrases as expressive and receptive language blends important
functional distinctions between types of operant behavior, and
appeals to cognitive explanations for the causes of language
behavior (Skinner, 1957, Chapter 1)
• The distinction between the mand, tact, and intraverbal
(traditionally all classified as expressive language) identifies three
separate sources of antecedent control
• EO control------->Mand
• Nonverbal SD---->Tact
• Verbal SD--------->Intraverbal
 Skinner’s Analysis of
Verbal Behavior
• The empirical question is are these three antecedents
variables functionally separate, or is there no value in
making this distinction?
• From a clinical standpoint, the two most common
language problems demonstrated by children with autism
that I have encountered over the past 32 years is a
defective mand repertoire and/or a defective intraverbal
repertoire, despite often having strong tact and receptive
discrimination repertoires.
 The Distinction Between the
Mand and the Tact

• Based on the distinction between the establishing operation (EO)

and stimulus control (SD) as separate sources of control
• Skinnerian psychology (“radical behaviorism,” see Skinner, 1974)
has always maintained that motivational control is different from
stimulus control
• In Behavior of Organisms (Skinner, 1938) Skinner devoted two
chapters to the treatment of motivation; Chapter 9 titled “Drive”
and Chapter 10 titled “Drive and Conditioning: The Interaction of
Two Variables.”
• Skinner also made it clear in the section titled “Drive (is) Not a
Stimulus” (pp. 374-376) that motivation is not the same as
discriminative, unconditioned, or conditioned stimuli.
 The Distinction Between the
Mand and the Tact

• Keller and Schoenfeld (1950) titled Chapter 9 “Motivation” and

further developed Skinner’s point, “A drive is not a stimulus” (p.
276), and suggested “a new descriptive term... ‘establishing
operation’” (p. 271)
• In Science and Human Behavior (1953) Skinner devoted three
chapters to motivation: Chapter 9: “Deprivation and Satiation,”
Chapter 10: “Emotion,” and Chapter 11: “Aversion, Avoidance,
Anxiety.”
• In Verbal Behavior (1957) Skinner had a full chapter on motivation
and language (The Mand), and throughout the book provided many
elaborations on motivational control -- as an antededent variable.
 The Distinction Between the
Mand and the Tact

• Holland and Skinner’s (1961) book contained four chapters on

motivation; Chapters 7: “Deprivation,” 8: “Emotion I,” 9:
“Avoidance and Escape Behavior,” and 10: “Emotion II.”
• Millenson (1968) contained four chapters on motivation and
presented an excellent summary of the relevant empirical research
(p. 364-384); Chapters 15: “Motivation I,” 16: “Motivation II,”17:
“Aversive Contingencies,” and 18: “Emotional Behavior.”
• However, the topic of motivation was for the most part dropped
from the first generation of Applied Behavior Analysis/Behavior
Modification textbooks that followed Millenson’s book (e.g.,
Fantino & Logan, 1979; Kazden, 1975; Martin & Pear, 1978;
Powers & Osborne, 1976; Whaley & Malott, 1971).
 The Distinction Between the
Mand and the Tact

• In explaining what happen to the analysis of motivation in behavior analysis,

Michael (1993) pointed out, “In applied behavior analysis or behavior
modification, the concept of reinforcement seems to have taken over much of the
subject matter that was once considered a part of the topic of motivation” (p.
191).
• There was a shift from the analysis of motivation as an antecedent variable to
motivation as a consequence
• In addition, motivation as a topic of research was absent from the behavioral
journals. For example, The Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis contained no
entries for “establishing operations” or “motivation” in the cumulative index
(1978) covering the first 10 years of publication.
• During the next 10 years (1979-1988) there were still no entries for “establishing
operation.” However, there were 5 entries for “motivation,” but they all involved
the use of motivation as a consequence, rather than as an antecedent variable.
 The Distinction Between the
Mand and the Tact

• Motivation has returned to behavior analysis textbooks and now is

a common topic in JABA thanks to Jack Michael, Brian Iwata,
Wayne Fisher, and others.
• The JABA index for the years 1999-2005 contains 29 entries for
the EO, and 2 for the MO (motivating operations)
• Malott, Whaley, & Malott (1997) contains a full chapter on the
EO. Catania (1994), Martin & Paer (2002), and Pierce & Epling
(1995) all contain analyses of motivation throughout their books
• The new Edition of the Cooper, Heron, & Heward book Applied
Behavior Analysis (In press) contains a full chapter on motivation
as well as a full chapter on Skinner’s analysis of verbal behavior.
 Research on the
Mand and Tact
• If a verbal response is established under nonverbal SD (a tact) will it
automatically transfer to EO control (a mand), and vice versa?
• Two teenagers with autism who had strong tact repertoires, but
weak mand repertoires (Hall & Sundberg, 1987)
• Making instant soup: Could tact all items necessary and could
complete the chain of behavior.
• If one of the items needed to complete the chain was missing,
neither subject could mand for the missing item, despite strong tact
and receptive repertoires for the items.
• By using an interrupted chain procedure and tact prompting and
fading, antecedent control was transferred from a nonverbal S D to
an EO, the subjects were taught to mand.
A Sample of Research on the EO, and the
Mand and Tact

• Hung (1980)
• Simic & Bucher (1980)
• Lamarre & Holland (1985)
• Pierce, Epling, & Boer (1986)
• Hall & Sundberg (1987)
• Carroll & Hesse, (1987)
• Stafford, Sundberg, & Braam (1988)
• Yamamoto & Mochizuki (1988)
• McPherson & Osborne (1988)
• De Freitas Ribeiro (1989)
A Sample of Research on the EO, and the
Mand and Tact
• Sigafoos, Doss, & Reichle (1989).
• Sundberg, San Juan, Dawdy, & Arguelles (1990)
• Sigafoos, Reichle, Doss, Hall, & Pettitt (1990)
• Baer & Detrich (1990)
• Braam & Sundberg (1991)
• Sprague & Horner (1992)
• Williams, & Greer (1993)
• Twyman (1996)
• Drasgow, Halle, & Ostrosky (1998)
• Drash, High, & Tudor (1999)
• Brown, Wacker, Derby, Peck, Richman, & Sasso (2000)
A Sample of Research on the EO, and the
Mand and Tact
• Knutson & Harding (2000)
• Barnes-Holmes & Barnes-Holmes (2000)
• Goh, Iwata, & DeLeon (2000)
• Sundberg, Loeb, Hale, & Eigenheer (2002)
• Arntzen & Almas (2002)
• Ewing, Magee, & Ellis (2002)
• Winborn, Wacker, Richman, Asmus, & Geier (2002)
• Chambers & Rehfeldt (2003)
• Ross & Greer (2003)
• Nuzzolo-Gomez & Greer (2004)
• Taylor, Hoch, Potter, Rodriguez, Spinnato, & Kalaigian (2005)
• Petursdottir, Carr, & Michael (2005)
 A Sample of Research on the EO,
and the Mand and Tact
• Taylor, Hoch, Potter, Rodriguez, Spinnato, & Kalaigian (2005)
• EO must be present to evoke mands (initiations to peers)
• Petursdottir, Carr, & Michael (2005).
• Mand training resulted in tacts, but tact training did not result in mands.
• There doesn’t appear to be a body of research that contradicts the separation of the
mand and tact.
• Research reviews
• Oah, S., & Dickinson, A.M. (1989). A review of empirical studies on verbal
behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 7, 53-68.
• Sautter & LeBlanc (In press). The Empirical Applications of Skinner’s Analysis of
Verbal Behavior with Humans. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior.
 Clinical Value of EO and Mand to
Children with autism
• Many children with autism have absent or defective mand repertoires

• A functional analysis of the child’s verbal behavior often reveals that the
response called a mand or a request is not under EO control, but rather S D
control, thus not, by definition a mand
 Defective Mand - Ally
EO Does not evoke a mand
______________________________________________________
EO
Does not evoke a mand
Object
______________________________________________________
Intraverbal prompt
(e.g. “Sign cookie”) Evokes a response
Imitative prompt (not a mand)
(ASL sign)
____________________________________________________________________
 EO Antecedent Control and Mand
Assessment and Intervention
in DTT and ABA Programs
• Lovaas, 1977, 1981, 2003 (clearly the most influential, outcome data)
• Expressive-receptive framework for language
• No mention of EO/motivation antecedent control
• Closest mand training activity is the “I Want___” program found late
in the program (between the adjective and preposition chapters).
• All language skills presented as SD control
• No focus on the fact that a single word, phrase, or sentence can be
strong in one repertoire and not another
• No functional analysis of words as behavior
 EO Antecedent Control and Mand
Assessment and Intervention
in DTT and ABA Programs
• Taylor & McDonough (1996)
• Expressive-receptive framework for language
• Indirect mentioning of EO/motivation antecedent control (desired)
• Request training provided, but developmentally late (after verbs, body parts,
functions of objects. Multiple control (object present)
• More advanced requesting “asking WH questions” but described as S D rather
than EO control
• Clearly an improvement over Lovaas, but still no focus on a single response
form having multiple functions (a functional analysis)
• Most likely these authors would include EOs and manding should there be a
new version of the program, given several recent conference presentations
and publications
 The Problem of the Terminology of
Traditional Linguistics
• What’s wrong with the term “request” and the other terms from linguistics
called “communication functions” (e.g., command, interactional, personal,
protesting, label, responsive, greeting, recurrence, existence, nonexistence,
rejection, denial, & location)
• Why would an applied behavior analyst be content with a classification system
of language based on response topography alone?
• That would certain not happen with a functional analysis of problem behavior.
Verbal behavior is behavior. A functional analysis is still the hallmark of our
field and should not stop at the verbal level
• Technical vernacular and etymological sanctions
• Most requests are mands, but many mands are not requests
• Why we don’t use “reward” either
• Many “requests” are often multiply controlled, but scored as correct.
 The Distinction Between the
the Tact and the Intraverbal

• A substantial number of children with autism have extensive tact

and RD repertoires, but a weak, absent, or defective intraverbal
repertoire
• The existing body of research support the conceptual analysis that
a response acquired under nonverbal stimulus control may not
automatically transfer to verbal stimulus control
• For example, a child may be able to say “French fry” when he
sees a French fry but not say “French fry” when asked “What do
you call potatoes cut up in strips and fried? (despite the echoic
prompt)
 Charlie: Quick Assessment
4

Mands Textual
Imitation Matching Labeling
Vocal Play Receptive Intraverbal
Cooperation
Vocal Imitation
 Nathan: Quick Assessment
4

Mands Textual
Imitation Matching Labeling
Vocal Play Receptive Intraverbal
Cooperation
Vocal Imitation
 Matt: Quick Assessment
4

Mands Textual
Imitation Matching Labeling
Vocal Play Receptive Intraverbal
Cooperation
Vocal Imitation
 Empirical Research on the Distinction
Between the Tact and Intraverbal
• Braam & Poling (1983)
• Chase, Johnson, & Sulzer-Azaroff (1985)
• Luciano (1986)
• Daly (1987)
• Lodhi & Greer (1989)
• Tenenbaum & Wolking (1989)
• Watkins, Pack-Teixeira, & Howard (1989)
• Sundberg, San Juan, Dawdy, & Arguelles (1990)
• Partington, & Bailey (1993)
• Sundberg, Endicott, & Eigenheer (2000)
• Finkel & Williams (2001)
• Miguel, Petursdottir, & Carr (2005)
 Empirical Research on the Distinction
Between the Tact and Intraverbal
• Two examples of research
• Braam & Poling (1983) found that children with autism who could emit
specific responses under tact control could not emit the same response forms
under intraverbal control. Transfer of stimulus control between nonverbal S Ds
and verbal stimuli were successful.
• Miguel, Petursdottir, & Carr (2005) replicated the basic procedures from
Braam and Poling (1983) and concluded “ while participants were able to
tact…and point to the pictures….they were not necessarily able to reliably
produce thematically related intraverbal responses…(until) intraverbal training
was used”
• No body of research has emerged to show the tact and intraverbal are the same
 Clinical Value of Verbal Stimulus Control
and the Intraverbal to Children with Autism
• Many children with autism have absent or defective intraverbal repertoires
• Verbal behavior evoked by verbal discriminative stimuli constitute a significant element
of human verbal interaction
• A functional analysis of the child with autism’s verbal behavior often reveals that the
response called intraverbal or conversational is not under verbal stimulus control, but
rather under nonverbal stimulus control, or EO control, thus not, by definition an
intraverbal
• Verbal stimulus control is extremely complicated, usually involving verbal conditional
discriminations (one verbal stimulus alters the evocative effect of another verbal
stimulus).
• Many common verbal errors by children with autism are related to defective verbal
stimulus control
• Many aspects of more complex VB involve multiple stimulus control consisting of tact
and intraverbal relations (e.g., “What color is that?” “What shape is that?”)
 Verbal Stimulus Control and Intraverbal
Assessment and Intervention
in DTT and ABA Programs
• Lovaas (1977, 1981, 2003)
• No sections answering questions, fill-in’s, verbal categories, etc. or what could be
identified as intraverbal training.
• No mention of verbal antecedent control of verbal behavior (all under receptive
langauge)
• Taylor & McDonough (1996)
• Several aspects of the program contain intraverbal activities (answering questions,
fill-ins, etc.)
• Clearly an improvement over Lovaas, but still no focus on a single response form
having multiple functions; a structural listing vs. a functional analysis
• No focus on verbal stimulus control and verbal conditional discriminations.
• Sequence of tasks are out of order, both developmentally and based on a functional
analysis of the increasing complexity of verbal stimulus control
 Is There Empirical Support for Skinner’s
Analysis of Verbal Behavior?
• What type of support is necessary and sufficient to
claim that there exists an empirical foundation for the
analysis of verbal behavior?
• Conceptual
• (e.g., Behavioral vs. cognitive explanations)
• Experimental
• (e.g., mand vs. tact; intraverbal vs. tact)
• Applied
• (e.g., A VB approach vs. a Discrete Trial approach)
 Conceptual Support
• The analysis of verbal behavior involves the same behavioral
principles and concepts that make up the analysis of nonverbal
behavior
• No new principles of behavior are required
• “The emphasis is upon an orderly arrangement of well-known
facts, in accordance with a formulation of behavior derived from
an experimental analysis of a more rigorous sort” (Skinner,
1957, p. 11)
• Is there empirical support for principles and concepts that form
the basis of behavior analysis in general?
• YES! (e.g., JEAB)
 Conceptual Support
 Is there the necessary and sufficient empirical
support for the basic principles that provide the
foundation of Skinner’s conceptual analysis of
language?
 Yes, it’s the same as behavior analysis in general
 Conceptual Support
• What are the alternatives?
• Cognitive theories of language (e.g., Piaget, Brown,
Pinker)
• Biological/Genetic theories of language (e.g., Chomsky,
Lenneberg, Pinker)
• Is the necessary and sufficient empirical support available
for those theories?
• NO!
 Experimental Support
• However, was Skinner’s interpretation of the basic facts
correct?
• For example…
• Is the distinction between the mand, tact, and intraverbal a valid
distinction?
• Do multiple sources of control have an additive effects?
• Are autoclitics tacts of the controlling variables of primary
responses emitted because of their special effects on listeners?
• There clearly are a number of research projects that would be
necessary to conclusively say whether the analysis has
empirical support or not (Sundberg, 1991).
 Experimental Support
• What is the current status?
• There is a growing body of empirical evidence that
supports elements of Skinner’s analysis, such as distinction
between the elementary verbal operants (e.g., Sautter &
LeBlanc, 2005).
• For example…
• Is MO control different from SD control?
• Is nonverbal stimulus control different from verbal
stimulus control?
• Does tact training produce mands and intraverbals?
 Experimental Support
• Does this constitute the necessary and sufficient empirical support?
• No, but it is a good start on the necessary support
• Substantially better than the empirical support for not recognizing the
distinction between the mand and tact
• Substantially better than the empirical support for the distinctions related to
traditional treatments of language
• Is there a comparable line of research available from, for example, the
elements of Piaget’s, or Pinker’s analysis of language and autism?
• The existing data on VB are not yet sufficient
 Applied Support
• Is there enough empirical support for the separation of the elementary
verbal operants to use them as a basis for language assessment and
intervention for language delayed children?
• For example: The distinction between the mand, tact and intraverbal.
• Yes
• Is there stronger evidence that there is no distinction between the mand,
tact, and intraverbal?
• No
• Does the conceptual and empirical evidence obtained thus far suggest that
it is okay to ignore the mand and intraverbal?
• No
 Applied Support
• Is an approach to language assessment and training that is
based on Skinner’s analysis of verbal behavior more
effective than an approach based on cognitive theories of
language?
• It is an empirical question
• However, given the evidence obtained thus far on the
separation of the verbal operants, transfer of antecedent
control between operants, and the use of multiple sources
of control to generate new operants, the distinction seems
quite valuable
 Applied Support
• Is there empirical support for the various VB
teaching procedures and strategies to generate
verbal repertoires for children with autism or other
language delays?
• No
• There are many different ways to use behavior
modification procedures to teach a mand
 Applied Support
• Is there enough evidence to support a behavioral approach
to language versus traditional approaches to language?
• Yes
• Clearly more basic and applied research is necessary, but
thus far the data support the analysis, and the interventions
have been successful
 Conclusion
• Language is behavior and rightfully, the subject matter of
behavior analysts.
• The “verbal behavior approach” is behavior analysis.
• It makes use of the same basic components of applied
behavior analysis as the other behavioral approaches, but
employs a behavioral analysis of language as its
conceptual foundation.
• The term “VB approach” has only been used to distinguish
it from approaches that use behavioral procedures, but do
not make use of a behavioral analysis of language
 Conclusion
• “The ‘VB approach’ is simply normative applied
behavior analysis with a few refinements. That is, it
incorporates all of the standard methodology of applied
behavior analysis, but it explicitly adopts Skinner's
interpretive framework for analyzing verbal
contingencies. In other words, it is a small variation on a
methodology that has an enormous empirical foundation.
The worst-case scenario is that the added framework
doesn't help. But even in that case the child is still
getting a full-fledged program of applied behavior
analysis procedures” (Palmer, 2005).
 Conclusion
• “It is simply hard to believe that a set of
procedures guided only by a distinction between
receptive and expressive language can be as
sharp as one that respects all of the various types
of contingencies analyzed by Skinner” (Palmer,
2005).
 Conclusion
 The necessary and sufficient empirical support exists for the basic principles
that provide the foundation of Skinner’s analysis of language
 The necessary and sufficient empirical support for the specific distinctions that
Skinner makes is emerging and very positive. However, much needs to be
accomplished
 The necessary and sufficient empirical support for specific applications of the
analysis do not exist, and may never exist in the same form as those above
(e.g., outcome data).
 It is a mistake to reject verbal behavior approaches based solely on applied
support
 A substantial amount of research is still needed.
 Conclusion
• Western Michigan University undergraduate curriculum in the 1970s
• WMU had/has the largest behavior analyst faculty in the world (20+)
• (Keller, Michael, Malott, Iwata, Ulrich, Hawkins, Lyon, Snapper, etc.)
• Psych 150 Introduction to Behavior Modification (Malott) & rat lab
• Psych 160 Child Development (Bijou & Baer)
• Psych 250 Abnormal Psychology (Ulmann & Krasner)
• Psych 260 Verbal Behavior (Skinner)
• Psych 350 Applied Behavior Analysis (Science and Human Behavior-
Skinner, JABA,), Applied Lab (e.g., KVMC w/ Jerry Shook)
• Psych 360 Experimental Analysis of Behavior (Operant Conditioning,
Honig, JEAB), & Pigeon Lab
• Psych 450 Research Methods (Stat book)
• Psych 460 Systems and theories (General Psych book)
 Conclusion
• B.F. Skinner wrote in 1978…

• “Verbal Behavior…will, I believe, prove to

be my most important work” (p. 122)

• Let’s get on with the proving!

 Thank You!

For an electronic version of this

presentation email:

marksundberg@astound.net
 An Assessment of Typical
Children’s Intraverbal Behavior
• 28 typical children served as participants
• Most were from the Seattle area
• Ages ranged from 17 months old to 5 1/2 years old.
• Parents administered the assessment
• Instructions were given to the parents, including to write
down exactly what the child said following the
presentation of the verbal stimulus
 Typical Children Age and Scores on
the Intraverbal Assessment
Typical Children Intraverbal
Assessment Scores
80

70 IV Score

60

50

n Months and Intraverbal

40 Score
Age in Months
30

20

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Children
 Children with Autism Age and Scores
on the Intraverbal Assessment
Children with Autism
Intraverbal Assessment Scores
130

120

110

100 Age in Months

90

80

70
in Months and Intraverbal
60
Score

50 IV Score

40

30

20

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Children