Research on the difference between generalization and maintenance in extra-therapy responding.

Hopkins et al. (1977) worked with kids in a clinic room and then watched them at recess.

They first taught the kids a simple task and paid them every time they got it right.

Next they cut the pay to only half the answers. Finally they let the kids play outside where free toys sat on a table. The toys were there no matter what the kids did.

The team counted how often the kids still did the task in both places.

Kids kept doing the task longer when two things happened together. First, the clinic pay dropped to part-time. Second, the playground had free toys waiting.

If either piece was missing, the skill faded fast. The study showed that generalization (doing it in a new spot) and maintenance (keeping it over time) are separate jobs.

Lord et al. (1986) later used the same two-step plan with honesty training. They thinned rewards and kept praise for rule statements. Kids stayed honest for months. This extends the 1977 idea to a new skill.

Shingleton‐Smith et al. (2024) moved the plan online. Parents learned to teach toddlers through Zoom. The parents still kept the skill after coaching ended. Again, the 1977 recipe works in modern telehealth.

Thomas et al. (1988) seems to disagree. They found that adding toys to praise made extinction worse, not better. The gap is only in the label. V gave toys as extra pay for the target act. L gave toys as free background items. Free toys calm the change from rich clinic to lean playground; paid toys become part of the act that later stops.

You can lock in a new skill without keeping full rewards. First, thin the schedule in your teaching room. Second, place liked items or activities in the real setting before the child gets there. These items cost nothing and do not need staff to deliver them. Try it with any skill you want to last: tying shoes, greeting peers, or using a calm voice.