The effects of stating contingency-specifying stimuli on compliance in children.
Put a delayed-response trial first and the next immediate instruction gets a quick boost.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team asked preschoolers to follow simple instructions. Each child heard two kinds of instructions. One kind let them act right away. The other kind said they could act later.
The researchers switched which instruction came first. They wanted to see if the order changed how many kids obeyed.
What they found
Most kids followed the instruction they could do right away. But the big surprise was order. When the delayed instruction came first, kids later obeyed the immediate instruction more often.
So sequence mattered more than timing alone.
How this fits with other research
Matousek et al. (1992) had already shown that immediate instructions beat delayed ones. The new study keeps that finding but adds a twist: start with a delay and you can still win later.
Fullana et al. (2007) also saw mixed results with antecedent tricks. Only one of their three preschoolers responded to high-probability sequences. Both papers warn that one-size antecedent packages rarely fit all kids.
Rojahn et al. (2012) took a different path. They taught kids to stop, look, and say "yes" before any instruction. That worked every time. Their success shows that building precursor skills can outshine tweaking instruction timing.
Why it matters
If you run compliance sessions, rotate the order of instructions across trials. A delayed trial first can warm up the learner for immediate ones later. Do not assume early failure means the tool is broken; it may just be in the wrong slot. Track order as carefully as you track prompts.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Start the session with one low-stakes delayed instruction, then pivot to the target you need right away.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The present investigation examined whether distinguishing between the discriminative and function-altering properties of contingency-specifying stimuli (CSS) is of heuristic value in conceptualizing child compliance. Groups of "compliant" and "noncompliant" children were instructed to place several blocks in a box. During half of the trials the children had an immediate opportunity to respond to the instruction (IOR), and during the other trials the children's opportunity to respond was delayed by 10 min (DOR). Results showed that 5 of the 8 children were more likely to comply in the IOR condition, whereas the 3 remaining children were equally compliant in IOR and DOR conditions. In addition, the study investigated the influence of condition presentation sequence on child compliance. Thus, half of the children entered the IOR condition first, and the other half entered the DOR condition first. Results showed no differences in compliance for 3 of 4 children in the IOR-first sequence. However, in the DOR-first sequence, all children, regardless of classification, were more compliant in IOR than in DOR conditions. Presentation order appeared to strongly influence compliance and could likely have affected the results of prior investigations.
The Analysis of verbal behavior, 1999 · doi:10.1007/BF03392944