Comparing the effects of two correction procedures on human acquisition of sequential behavior patterns.
Re-start the sequence fresh after an error—learners master chained tasks faster than if you repeat the missed order.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team taught college students short button-press patterns.
Each pattern was four lights long.
After a wrong press the computer gave one of two fixes.
Same-order group saw the exact pattern again.
New-order group saw a fresh random pattern.
The study tracked how fast each group reached mastery.
What they found
The new-order group learned faster and made fewer errors.
Re-shuffling the sequence after a mistake beat repeating the old one.
The benefit showed up early and held across patterns.
How this fits with other research
Winett et al. (1991) later saw the same edge with kids who had developmental delays.
They used match-to-sample tasks and still found one correction style beat plain differential reinforcement.
Lancioni et al. (2011) extended the idea to sight-word drills.
Correcting during probe trials—another form of fresh input—cut errors for students with moderate ID.
Cariveau et al. (2019) reviewed dozens of studies and said no single correction recipe wins every time.
That sounds like a clash, but it isn’t.
The review pooled many ages, skills, and labels.
Emmelkamp et al. (1986) only tested sequential patterns with neurotypical adults.
The narrow focus is why the new-order edge shows up so clearly here.
Why it matters
When you teach chains—hand-washing steps, typing codes, or PE routines—try a quick re-set after an error.
Present the steps in a new order instead of repeating the failed chain.
One shuffle can save trials and cut student frustration.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After a wrong step in a chain, cue the whole chain in a new random order instead of re-trying the old one.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Thirty-one college undergraduates learned to touch abstract stimuli on a computer screen in arbitrarily designated "correct" sequential orders. Four sets of seven stimuli were used; the stimuli were arrayed horizontally on the screen in random sequences. A correct response (i.e., touching first the stimulus designated as first) resulted in that stimulus appearing near the top of the screen in its correct sequential position (left to right), and remaining there until the end of the trial. Incorrect responses (i.e., touching a stimulus out of sequence) terminated the trial. New trials displayed either the same sequence as the one on which an error had occurred (same-order correction procedure), or a new random sequence (new-order correction procedure). Whenever all responses occurred in the correct sequence, the next trial displayed a new random sequence. Each phase ended when five consecutive correct response sequences occurred. Initially, the same-order correction procedure increased control by the position as well as by the shape of the stimuli; also, it produced more errors, more total trials, more trials to mastery, and more individual patterns of reacquisition than were produced by the new-order procedure.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1986 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1986.46-1