By Matt Harrington, BCBA · Behaviorist Book Club · Research-backed answers for behavior analysts
When applied to social interaction, Cool vs. Not Cool involves presenting video examples of social interactions — such as approaching a peer, initiating a conversation, or responding to a request — in both contextually appropriate (cool) and contextually inappropriate (not cool) versions. The learner is taught to discriminate and label which version is cool and which is not cool. The procedure builds not just behavioral performance but evaluative judgment about when and how a social interaction should occur, which is the component that supports generalization to real-world social situations.
Social interaction targets that have a contextual component are the best candidates. This includes greetings that vary by relationship (greeting a peer vs. a stranger), conversational topics that are appropriate in some settings and not others, physical contact that depends on the relationship and context, turn-taking that varies by activity type, and interruption behaviors that depend on urgency and situation. Any social behavior where the appropriateness depends on contextual features rather than just the presence or absence of the behavior itself benefits from Cool vs. Not Cool discrimination training.
Research on video modeling and discrimination training generally supports using multiple exemplars per target to promote generalization. For Cool vs. Not Cool social interaction programs, having at least three to five examples of each the cool and not cool versions of a target is a reasonable minimum for initial training. These examples should vary across actors, settings, and relevant contextual features. Additional generalization probe stimuli — video examples not used during training — should be prepared before instruction begins to evaluate whether the discrimination transfers to novel exemplars. As the program progresses, adding new exemplars maintains and extends the discrimination.
Yes, and the group format may actually enhance some aspects of the procedure. Presenting video examples to a small group and having group members discuss or vote on whether the example is cool or not cool adds a peer interaction component to the instruction, which increases social validity and may promote observational learning. Group discussion also provides the instructor with more data about how different learners are interpreting the examples and whether there are disagreements that need to be addressed. Group implementation requires that the discussion be structured enough to remain on task and that all participants have opportunities to respond.
Generalization requires explicit programming rather than assuming it will occur. Strategies include using video examples that match the learner's real social environments, conducting in-vivo generalization probes after training, embedding cool or not cool prompts into natural settings through brief coaching moments, and training caregivers and teachers to use the cool and not cool language during naturally occurring social interactions. Gradually reducing the structure of the prompts — from explicit cool or not cool questions to more naturalistic social feedback — supports the transition to self-monitoring in natural contexts.
Reinforcement plays the standard role in discrimination training: providing differentially reinforcing consequences for correct cool versus not cool judgments establishes the discrimination and motivates accurate responding. Initially, praise and tangible reinforcement for correct judgments drives acquisition. As the learner becomes more accurate, the reinforcement schedule should be thinned and the delivery of social praise and natural consequences should become the primary maintaining contingency. The goal is for accurate social discrimination to be maintained by the naturally occurring positive social outcomes that come from making socially appropriate interaction choices.
The Cool vs. Not Cool procedure requires that the learner evaluate a social interaction from an observer perspective — they are watching a video and making a judgment about what they see. This observer role is a component of perspective-taking: understanding how a social interaction might be perceived by participants other than oneself. While Cool vs. Not Cool does not fully address the mental state attribution aspects of perspective-taking, it builds a behavioral foundation for evaluative social judgment that can be extended into more complex perspective-taking programs. For learners working on theory of mind skills, Cool vs. Not Cool can serve as a complementary component of a broader social cognition curriculum.
Involving the learner in developing or selecting video examples increases the social validity of the program and may enhance engagement. Where possible, show potential video examples to the learner and get their input, observe which types of social situations they encounter most frequently and find most challenging, and use role-play or learner-generated scenarios as a basis for video development. Learner involvement is most feasible for older or more verbally fluent individuals. Even for younger learners, caregiver input that reflects the child's actual social experiences can serve a similar function of ensuring the program is ecologically grounded.
Systematic errors warrant a careful diagnostic analysis before increasing reinforcement intensity or simplifying criteria. First, examine whether the video examples are ambiguous — multiple viewings by staff may reveal that some examples are not clearly cool or not cool. Second, assess whether the learner may be attending to the wrong features of the stimulus. Third, consider whether prerequisite skills such as verbal behavior complexity or sustained attention are limiting performance. Error correction in Cool vs. Not Cool typically involves presenting the correct label with a brief explanation of the contextual feature that determines it, followed by a re-presentation of the example for the learner to respond correctly.
Dr. Leaf's study provides single-case experimental design data demonstrating that the Cool vs. Not Cool procedure produces acquisition of social interaction discriminations in children with autism. This constitutes the empirical foundation required by BACB Code 2.01 for justifying its inclusion in a treatment plan. The study should be referenced in treatment plans as the evidence base when proposing the procedure, with acknowledgment that the evidence is emerging and that ongoing data collection within the individual case is a component of responsible implementation. Practitioners should document baseline data, the training protocol, and ongoing outcome data.
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Ready to go deeper? This course covers this topic with structured learning objectives and CEU credit.
Teaching Social Interaction Skills Using Cool versus Not Cool | Learning | 0.5 Hours — Autism Partnership Foundation · 0.5 BACB General CEUs · $0
Take This Course →0.5 BACB General CEUs · $0 · Autism Partnership Foundation
Research-backed educational guide with practice recommendations
Side-by-side comparison with clinical decision framework
All behavior-analytic intervention is individualized. The information on this page is for educational purposes and does not constitute clinical advice. Treatment decisions should be informed by the best available published research, individualized assessment, and obtained with the informed consent of the client or their legal guardian. Behavior analysts are responsible for practicing within the boundaries of their competence and adhering to the BACB Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts.