A reevaluation of stimulus overselectivity: restricted stimulus control or stimulus control hierarchies.

Bickel et al. (1984) watched kids pick one of many pictures. They tracked which pictures controlled the kids' choices.

Instead of calling narrow choices a flaw, they mapped a pecking order of picture control.

Every child showed a clear order: some pictures ruled, others followed, some had no say.

The team said 'overselectivity' is just the top of this order, not a broken filter.

Ploog (2010) folds this idea into a big review. The review still calls overselectivity common in autism and urges behavior tactics like many-examples training.

Gomes‐Ng et al. (2023) push further. They weaken the top picture with brief extinction. Only highly overselective adults then notice the ignored pictures, matching the 1984 claim that hierarchy rank sets who shifts.

Crane et al. (2010) add a twist: reward a brand-new response in the presence of the ruling picture. This trick lifts the once-ignored pictures, but again only when the first gap between ruler and rest was wide.

McAleer et al. (2011) show the order can be taught. Adults trained with nine-part pictures later ignore more parts than adults trained with simple pairs, proving the hierarchy is learned, not fixed.

Stop assuming a child who picks only one picture is broken. Probe every picture in your array to find the full chain of command. Then use that chain: if control is wide, teach with many examples; if control is narrow, weaken the boss cue with extinction or prompt looking at the rest. Map first, intervene second.