A Modern Collaborative Behavior Analytic Approach to Incidental Naming
Context cues likely spark incidental naming, but nobody has run the experiment—so watch your session closely and take notes.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Gilmore et al. (2024) looked at every paper they could find on incidental naming.
They did not run new experiments. They read, grouped, and mapped what is still missing.
Their big question: do hidden cues in the room steer the moment a child suddenly names something?
What they found
No study has ever tested those hidden cues. The gap is wide open.
The reviewers say the cue probably sits in plain sight—like a peer leaving, lights dimming, or a toy moving—but data are zero.
How this fits with other research
Older work already shows context flips reinforcer power. Michael (1974) proved a light only stayed “good” while it signaled the rich schedule; when schedules flipped, the light’s value flipped too.
Browning et al. (2018) added that a peer walking in or out renewed rat lever presses. Social context alone rebooted extinguished behavior.
Jones et al. (1992) tightened the link to human words: college kids worked to see arbitrary text that merely announced extinction. Words gained reinforcing punch from the surrounding condition.
Together these studies scream that context steers behavior, yet no one has run the same test on incidental naming—exactly the blind spot Gilmore et al. flag.
Why it matters
You already manipulate context in session—switch rooms, add peers, dim lights. This review tells you those moves may also control when novel naming pops out, but we lack data. Track sudden naming bursts and log what just changed in the room. Share the data; science needs it.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Start a simple ABC log: each time a child names something new, jot the last context change—peer left, light shifted, toy moved—and look for patterns after two weeks.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
An important distinction has been drawn within the behavior-analytic literature between two types of naming. Naming that is reinforced is referred to as bidirectional naming, and naming that is not reinforced is referred to as incidental bidirectional naming. According to verbal behavior development theory children who demonstrate incidental naming have developed a verbal behavioral cusp, and often learn new language more rapidly as a result. A growing body of research has assessed incidental naming using what is described as an incidental naming experience, in which novel stimuli are presented and named by a researcher but with no direct differential reinforcement for subsequent naming responses by the participant. According to relational frame theory, such studies on incidental naming have typically involved presenting contextual cues that likely serve to establish the name relations between an object and its name. As such, contextual cues may play a critical role in the emergence of incidental naming responses, but there are no published studies that have systematically tested the potential role of contextual cues in relation to incidental naming. The current article provides a narrative review of the incidental naming literature, highlighting variables that remain to be explored in future research.
Perspectives on Behavior Science, 2024 · doi:10.1007/s40614-024-00399-0