The effects of specific versus nonspecific reinforcement on verbal behavior.
Use the item being taught as a reinforcer to grow untrained mands, or use praise to help the new tact appear later in mand contexts.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team compared two ways to reward tacts. One group got the item they named (mand reinforcer). The other got praise or unrelated items (tact reinforcer).
They ran the test with nonverbal clients during tact lessons. The goal was to see which style taught labels faster and lasted longer.
What they found
Both groups learned new tacts at the same speed. The labels also lasted the same when rewards stopped.
The twist: mand rewards made clients ask for items they had never requested before. Tact rewards helped clients use the new labels when they later had to ask for things.
How this fits with other research
Weinsztok et al. (2023) looked at many DTT studies. They found toys and snacks usually beat praise for speed. Northup et al. (1991) agrees: reward type did not change tact speed, echoing the review’s note that effects can be idiosyncratic.
Tassé et al. (2013) went further. After plain tact training, teens with autism gave untrained intraverbal answers. The 1991 paper shows a different bonus: tact rewards boost later mand use. Together they tell us tact lessons give free extras, but the extra depends on the reinforcer you pick.
Crane et al. (2010) showed that saying a plan out loud helps kids follow through when the plan is rewarded. Both studies say the same thing: what you reinforce and how you use words together decide what generalizes.
Why it matters
Pick the reinforcer to fit the bonus you want. If you need more spontaneous requests, let the client earn the item they label. If you want the new word to pop up later when they ask for other things, stay with praise or unrelated toys. Either way, you still get the tact; the side effect is your choice.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →During tact trials, give the named item as the reward for three sessions, then probe to see if the client now asks for it without being asked.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The current study is a systematic replication and extension of previous research on the differences between specific (mand) and nonspecific (tact) reinforcement. The focus was on the role that these different consequences played in the acquisition of verbal behavior. Using both a within-subject and a between-subjects design, the current researchers trained eight essentially nonverbal individuals to tact a variety of foods under two different reinforcement conditions. The results showed no significant differences between the four matched-pairs in rates of acquisition, or in the resistance to extinction. However, subjects in the specific reinforcement condition emitted more untrained mand-compliance responses, while subjects in the nonspecific group demonstrated increased generalization to multiply controlled mand conditions. The results supported previous findings which indicated that the two types of consequences were equally effective in the acquisition of tacting, but each had unique features and implications for language training with nonverbal populations.
The Analysis of verbal behavior, 1991 · doi:10.1007/BF03392857