The efficacy of stimulus fading and contingency management in the treatment of elective mutism: a case study.
Stimulus fading is the active ingredient—timeout alone won’t make an electively mute child talk.
01Research in Context
What this study did
A child who would not speak at school got two treatments. One was timeout for silence. The other slowly moved a trusted adult closer while the child whispered answers.
The team switched the two treatments back and forth to see which made the child talk out loud.
What they found
Only the slow-fading steps worked. The child began to speak when the adult faded closer.
Timeout alone did nothing. It only helped when it was paired with the fading steps.
How this fits with other research
Costa et al. (2025) later used script fading to teach full sentences to kids with autism. Both studies show the same core idea: fade the prompt, get the words.
Latimier et al. (2019) stretched the fading idea further. They used a nine-step fade to move children with autism from play to table-work. Their results back up the 1973 finding: gradual stimulus fading keeps behavior calm while new skills grow.
Solnick et al. (1977) and Davis et al. (1974) warn that timeout can back-fire if the room is boring or if timeout gives its own payoff. The 1973 case fits this picture: timeout without the rich, gradual fading did nothing, just as the later papers predict.
Why it matters
If you work with kids who stay quiet, start with stimulus fading, not punishment. Pair trusted people or items with the request to talk, then move them closer bit by bit. Add brief timeout for silence only after the fading is in place. This old case still guides best practice today.
Get CEUs on This Topic — Free
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Start every new voice target by fading your chair one foot closer each session before adding any timeout.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Stimulus fading techniques were compared to those of contingency management in the treatment of a 6-yr-old, electively mute girl. Experimental periods consisted of the mother rewarding the child for verbal and motor responses to scheduled tasks, while a stranger slowly entered the room and then gradually administered the task items as mother left the room. A timeout contingency for non-response to task items was also employed. Control periods consisted of a stranger administering the same tasks to the child under the same contingencies but without the presence of the mother or the use of stimulus fading. Experimental and control periods were alternated during each treatment hour. The stimulus fading procedure was found to be a necessary component of the treatment process. While the timeout contingency for non-response was found to facilitate treatment if combined with stimulus fading, it was completely ineffective without the stimulus fading.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1973 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1973.6-435