Toward an explicit analysis of generalization: A stimulus control interpretation.

Feinstein et al. (1988) wrote a how-to paper, not a lab test. They asked, "What really makes skills travel from desk to cafeteria?"

The answer: stimulus control. If you know which cues turn the behavior on and off, you can build those cues into teaching from day one. No extra "generalization phase" needed.

The authors mapped common tactics (loose training, indiscriminable contingencies, delayed rewards) onto clear stimulus-control rules. Following the rules keeps the child responding even when the room, teacher, or task changes.

Parsons et al. (1981) beat them to the punch. Preschool kids earned tokens all day but got the prize only after the final bell. End-of-day payoff acted like an indiscriminable contingency and produced wide, sturdy generalization. The 1988 paper supplies the theory that explains why that late-delivery trick works.

Wahler (1969) showed the danger of ignoring the idea. Home-only rewards fixed behavior at home while school behavior stayed wild. C et al. use that failure to argue you must plan the cues and rewards so the behavior is needed in both places.

Griffin et al. (1977) and Grusec (1968) demonstrated peak shift with pigeons and shock years earlier. The 1988 article bundles those lab curiosities into a practical checklist for teachers and clinicians.

Stop hoping skills will "just generalize." Pick the cues that will be present in the real place, weave them into teaching, and tie rewards to those same cues. Monday, try delivering the reinforcer only after the final school bell rings; you may see the skill pop up in recess, bus line, and home without extra lessons.