Toward a technology of generalization: The identification of natural contingencies of reinforcement.
Use five real-world evidence checks to find the natural reinforcer that will maintain the skill after you leave.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Logue et al. (1986) wrote a how-to guide. They list five kinds of evidence you can watch for in the real world. These clues show which everyday rewards keep new skills alive after you stop delivering tokens or praise.
The paper is pure theory. No kids, no trials, no data tables. It gives you a checklist to spot "behavioral traps" — natural payoffs that hook the learner so you can fade out artificial ones.
What they found
The five evidence types are simple. Look for: (1) the skill and the natural reward moving together at baseline, (2) they still move together after you end treatment, (3) the reward alone can drive the skill, (4) without the reward the skill drops, and (5) adding the reward back lifts the skill again.
If you see these patterns, you have found a natural contingency. Lean on it. Let it do the work so the behavior stays without you.
How this fits with other research
Marin et al. (2024) extends the same worry to equivalence relations. They warn that lab-built stimulus classes may collapse in noisy homes or playgrounds. Both papers push you to test your teaching where the client actually lives.
Jenkins et al. (1973) gives a live demo. Social praise for brand-new block forms made preschoolers invent more forms. Their study is a real-life example of evidence type 3 — the natural reward (attention) alone drove creative play.
McCabe et al. (2025) sounds like a contradiction. Their review says interactive reinforcement rarely shows up in synthesized assessments. But the gap is about method, not truth. McCabe looks for synergy during brief lab tests; W et al. teach you to hunt for single, naturally occurring rewards over long stretches. Both can be right.
Why it matters
Stop guessing what will keep a skill alive. Use the five evidence types like a field guide. Watch your client in recess, at the lunch table, in the grocery line. When you see one of the patterns, grab that contingency and fold it into your plan. You will write shorter programs and still see behavior stick.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one current client, list two possible natural payoffs, and track if the behavior and payoff rise and fall together for one week.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Applied behavior analysts have directed a growing effort towards the development of a technology for behavioral generalization and maintenance over the past decade. Among the list of potential generalization promoters thought to exist is the natural contingency of social reinforcement (i.e., a behavioral trap) for new behavior in its untrained form or setting, or over time. Although past researchers have noted a need to program for the generalization and maintenance of behavior change, the current understanding of behavioral traps precludes the use of these contingencies to support behavioral changes when interventions are not in operation. This article describes five forms of evidence useful for the identification and analysis of natural contingencies of reinforcement. Examples from the applied research literature are provided to illustrate the kinds of studies that would greatly enhance our knowledge of behavioral traps and improve our ability to understand and program the generalization of trained behaviors across diverse forms and settings, and over time.
The Behavior analyst, 1986 · doi:10.1007/BF03391926