Saying and doing: A commentary on a contingency-space analysis.
Track say-do matches with a simple check, not a four-part grid.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Wilson et al. (1987) wrote a short, sharp reply to Matthews et al. (1987).
Both papers live in the same journal issue.
The target says stop drawing four-part contingency maps. Just ask: did the child’s words match what the child did?
What they found
The paper finds no new data.
It finds extra math does not help clinicians.
Simple yes-or-no check marks are enough.
How this fits with other research
Matthews et al. (1987) sits right across the page. That team loves the full four-box grid. Same year, same topic, opposite advice.
Moxley (1989) and Iwata et al. (1990) ran the test. They showed preschoolers only say-do match when reinforcement is in place. These studies keep the simple score the commentary wants, but prove you still need a contingency.
Périkel et al. (1974) drew the first contingency boxes for animal work. Wilson et al. (1987) says those boxes are overkill for kids’ promises.
Why it matters
When you do correspondence training, skip the graph paper. Ask one clear question: did the client do what they said? Then reinforce the match. This keeps sessions fast and keeps you looking at behavior, not diagrams.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Start each session by asking the child to state the rule, then mark yes or no if they follow it—no extra boxes needed.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This article addresses the contingency-space analysis (Matthews, Shimoff, & Catania, 1987) of the verbal regulation of behavior. From an applied perspective, the conceptualization of the relationship between saying and doing Matthews et al. present may be more complex than is necessary. The central issue in correspondence investigations is a simple one: does correspondence between what people say and what they do occur? The focus of this paper is on the applied and clinical importance of the relationship between verbalizations and relevant behavior and the implications for future research.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1987 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1987.20-161