Reduction of stimulus overselectivity with nonverbal differential observing responses.
Making learners name every part of a complex stimulus before they match wipes out stimulus overselectivity on the spot.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Three adults with intellectual disability played a picture-matching game. Each card showed three shapes. The teacher first asked the learner to point to each shape and say its color. This forced the learner to look at every part. Then the teacher removed the card and showed two choice cards. The learner picked the card that matched the sample.
The team turned the prompt on and off in an ABAB design. During A phases the teacher gave no prompts. During B phases the teacher required the naming response before every match.
What they found
When the naming prompt was on, all three adults picked the correct card almost every time. When the prompt stopped, accuracy dropped back to near-chance levels. The gains came back as soon as the prompt returned.
The prompt broke stimulus overselectivity. Learners stopped looking at only one shape and started using all three.
How this fits with other research
McAleer et al. (2011) showed that overselectivity is learned. Adults who first practiced with busy nine-part pictures later showed worse overselectivity than adults who started with simple pictures. Farmer-Dougan et al. (1999) adds a fix: if you force the learner to name every part, you can undo the narrow seeing habit right away.
Morris et al. (1982) used a three-second pause instead of naming. Both tricks make the learner wait and sample more cues. The pause helps kids with autism; the naming helps adults with ID. Choose the tool that fits your learner.
Gomes-Ng et al. (2023) went one step further. After overselectivity formed, they removed reinforcement from the over-selected shape and paid for picking the missed shape. This revaluation worked only for learners who were highly overselective to start. Farmer-Dougan et al. (1999) gives you the first aid; Gomes-Ng et al. gives you the follow-up plan.
Why it matters
You can cut overselectivity in half today. Before a matching or sorting task, ask your learner to touch and name each part of the stimulus. Use this prompt on every trial until accuracy stays high, then fade it slowly. If the narrow focus returns, bring the prompt back. Pair this with simple materials at first (Phil et al., 2011) and add revaluation later if needed (Gomes-Ng et al., 2023).
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a quick identity-naming step before each matching trial and collect data for ten trials.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Three individuals with mental retardation exhibited stimulus overselectivity in a delayed matching-to-sample task in which two sample stimuli were displayed on each trial. Intermediate accuracy scores indicated that participants could match one of the samples but not both of them. Accuracy in a baseline condition was compared to accuracy with a differential observing response procedure. This procedure prompted participants to make simultaneous identity-matching responses that required observation and discrimination of both sample stimuli. These observing responses were never followed by differential consequences. When observing responses were prompted, participants' accuracy scores improved. In a return to the baseline condition, when differential observing responses were no longer prompted, accuracy returned to intermediate levels. The results show that stimulus overselectivity can be greatly reduced by a behavioral intervention that controls observing behavior and verifies discrimination, but that exposure to such procedures alone may be insufficient for lasting benefits.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1999 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1999.32-25