Tacting and manding in correspondence training: effects of child selection of verbalization.

Four preschoolers played with toys while adults tracked their words and actions.

Each child first picked a toy and said what they would do with it.

The adult then either (a) praised and let the child keep the toy only if the child later played as promised, or (b) took the toy away no matter what the child did.

Sessions switched back and forth so every child felt both conditions.

When praise and toys hinged on matching their words, kids said what they did about a large share of the time.

When the toy was removed no matter what, the match dropped to a large share.

Simply saying the plan out loud was not enough; the contingency made the difference.

May et al. (2016) later showed that preschoolers can sprout new language without direct teaching when listener and intraverbal drills are reinforced.

Both studies show that reinforcement, not age or extra words, drives verbal growth.

Rosenthal et al. (1980) found that children with delays only asked for items when the setting clearly backed the request; the 1990 data echo this in neurotypical kids—contingencies rule.

Cortez et al. (2020) compared tact and listener lessons and again saw the reinforced skill surge while the untaught one lagged, lining up with the 1990 message.

If you want a child to follow a plan, promise, or rule, tie a reinforcer to the match between words and actions.

Saying the plan aloud is helpful only if you later deliver the payoff when the child follows through.

Next time you use self-monitoring or social stories, add a quick check and a reward for accuracy—the data say it triples correspondence.