Correspondence between saying and doing: Some thoughts on defining correspondence and future directions for application.

Kydd et al. (1982) wrote a think-piece, not an experiment.

They looked at the old idea of correspondence training.

The team asked: are we using the same word for two different jobs?

The paper says correspondence training can either make a behavior happen more or make it stop.

If you want a child to clean up after saying "I will clean," that is one plan.

If you want a child to stop hitting after saying "I will not hit," that is a different plan.

The writers warn: pick your goal early and plan for the skill to last later and in new places.

Attwood et al. (1988) took the idea and ran with it. They taught parents to match their words to their actions during school meetings. The parents learned to say what they would do and then do it.

Shogren (2024) shows the idea is still alive. The editorial tells researchers to match their public claims about inclusive science with real inclusive steps.

Parsons et al. (1981) looks like a clash but is not. That study found observers cheat when they score their own data. Kydd et al. (1982) would say the fix is simple: make the scoring rules match the real rules and check if observers follow them.

Next time you set up a correspondence program, first ask: do I want the child to start or stop the behavior? Write the plan for that goal. Add steps to keep the skill after you fade the rewards.