By Matt Harrington, BCBA · Behaviorist Book Club · Research-backed answers for behavior analysts
An autoclitic is verbal behavior that depends on and modifies other verbal behavior — it qualifies, relates, or comments on the speaker's own verbal output. Unlike primary verbal operants such as mands (controlled by motivating operations) or tacts (controlled by nonverbal stimuli), autoclitics are controlled by the speaker's own verbal behavior. Examples include grammatical qualifiers, epistemic markers like 'I think' or 'I know,' quantifiers, and relational terms. What makes the LEOV research distinctive is its focus on autoclitics presented as antecedent verbal stimuli that alter listener behavior — examining the persuasive function of autoclitic frames rather than their role as speaker output.
LEOV is a behavioral research lab coordinated by Prof. Hubner that has conducted eleven experiments over eighteen years examining how autoclitic verbal stimuli presented as antecedent conditions affect subsequent nonverbal responses. The research uses A-B-A and pre-post designs with typically developing children and university students as participants. Findings document that autoclitic frames can have persuasive effects on listener behavior — altering the probability of nonverbal responding in ways that go beyond the semantic content of the accompanying verbal stimuli. This research extends Skinner's conceptual analysis of autoclitics into systematic experimental territory.
A-B-A designs are single-case experimental designs in which behavior is measured during a baseline phase (A), during an intervention or comparison condition (B), and then again during a return to baseline conditions (A). The reversal from B back to A helps confirm that the behavior change was caused by the independent variable, not by extraneous factors. Pre-post designs measure behavior before and after a specific condition or intervention without a reversal phase. Both designs are standard in behavioral research. The LEOV program's use of both designs across eleven studies, with replication across participants and conditions, provides multiple demonstrations of autoclitic effects.
If autoclitic frames alter the stimulus control function of verbal content, then how a BCBA delivers instructions — the verbal qualifiers, relational terms, and epistemic markers that surround task demands — may systematically affect client responding independently of the instruction's semantic content. This suggests that practitioners should be attentive to the verbal context of their instructions and prompts, not just their topographic content. Research on this topic is specialized, and direct clinical application requires careful attention to the conditions under which autoclitic effects were demonstrated — they may not generalize uniformly across client populations or intervention contexts.
Potentially, yes. If autoclitic frames reliably alter the probability of listener responding, then how caregivers frame verbal instructions and requests to their children may matter beyond the semantic content of those instructions. Training caregivers to attend to the verbal context of their communication — not just what they say but the relational and qualifying frames in which they say it — could have implications for implementation of behavioral programs in natural settings. This is an application domain that remains underdeveloped in the applied literature and would benefit from direct empirical investigation in clinical populations.
The LEOV research demonstrates that verbal stimuli can function as discriminative stimuli or motivating operations for nonverbal behavior — the autoclitic frame in which verbal content is embedded alters what the listener does next, not just what they understand semantically. This is consistent with Skinner's framework, which treats verbal stimuli as antecedent conditions subject to the same functional analysis as nonverbal stimuli. The research provides experimental evidence for autoclitic control over listener behavior that goes beyond conceptual analysis, making the functional role of verbal antecedent stimuli more empirically tractable.
If autoclitic frames modify the probability of listener behavior, supervisory communication is a domain where this mechanism may be particularly relevant. How supervisors frame performance feedback — the epistemic and relational verbal context in which evaluative statements are embedded — may affect supervisee behavioral responses independently of the content of the feedback itself. Supervisors who understand this can be more deliberate about verbal framing in supervision, attending to whether autoclitic elements are increasing or reducing the probability of effective supervisee engagement with feedback. This remains a largely unexplored application of autoclitic research in applied settings.
Research with typically developing children and college students establishes a behavioral baseline for autoclitic function in verbal repertoires that are not developmentally impaired. This baseline serves as a reference point for understanding what autoclitic repertoires look like when intact, which informs the target for intervention in clinical populations where autoclitic development is delayed or atypical. The conditions under which autoclitic effects are demonstrated in typical populations also help identify the prerequisite verbal repertoires that must be in place for autoclitic stimulus control to emerge — information that is directly relevant to sequencing language intervention goals.
Autoclitics are foundational to several complex social communication functions. Expressing uncertainty or certainty, indicating the logical relationship between propositions, signaling deference or disagreement in conversation — these social functions all involve autoclitic elements. Clients who lack autoclitic repertoires are limited in their ability to engage in the nuanced verbal communication that complex social relationships require. Understanding autoclitic development provides BCBAs with a more fine-grained framework for assessing and targeting the complex social communication goals that are often the clinical priority for clients with strong foundational verbal operant repertoires but persistent social communication challenges.
BCBAs should evaluate the LEOV research using standard criteria for behavioral research: the clarity of the experimental design, the reliability of the dependent measure, the strength of the experimental control demonstrated across studies, and the conditions under which findings were obtained. Eleven experiments with A-B-A and pre-post designs, using systematic behavioral observation with two distinct participant populations, provides a reasonable basis for confidence in the reliability of autoclitic persuasive effects. Clinical application should be targeted and monitored — practitioners who apply these findings should collect data on the behavioral effects in their specific clinical contexts rather than assuming generalization from laboratory conditions.
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.
Verbal Behavior - 18 years of research: data and practical implications. — Martha Hubner · 1 BACB General CEUs · $0
Take This Course →1 BACB General CEUs · $0 · BehaviorLive
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.