Effects of differential observing responses on observational learning across multiple contingencies

Two children with autism watched peers do tasks and earn rewards.

First the kids just watched. They copied the peer only half the time.

Then the teacher added a rule: each time the peer acted, the child had to say what the peer did AND what prize the peer got. This is called a differential observing response.

After the child named both the action and the prize every time, copying jumped to almost perfect.

More important, when brand-new tasks and prizes showed up, the kids still copied correctly. They had learned how to learn from watching.

Storch et al. (2012) first showed that having a child repeat the peer’s word right away boosts sight-word learning. Blowers keeps the repeat trick but adds naming the consequence, proving the extra step gives wider transfer.

Murphy et al. (2014) made consequences flashier to fix errors in discrimination. Blowers does the opposite: keeps the same plain consequences but trains the child to notice them. Both teams get the same result—better learning—showing there are two roads to sharper stimulus control.

Vassos et al. (2023) used many examples to make joint attention generalize. Blowers used many examples of peer models. Both studies say the same thing: if you want a skill to travel, give lots of slightly different practice and make the learner actively respond each time.

You can add a quick vocal prompt—“What did she do and what did she get?”—while clients watch peers. This tiny step turns hit-or-miss copying into reliable observational learning that survives new tasks, new reinforcers, and new rooms. Use it in social-skills groups, inclusion settings, or sibling training. No extra materials needed—just your prompt and their voice.