Citation
Some Determinants of Verbal Nonverbal Correspondence

Material Information

Title:
Some Determinants of Verbal Nonverbal Correspondence
Creator:
Horton, Kathryn G
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
Florida
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
english
Physical Description:
1 online resource (40 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Psychology
Committee Chair:
IWATA,BRIAN A
Committee Co-Chair:
FARRAR,MICHAEL J
Committee Members:
VOLLMER,TIMOTHY RAYMOND
CONROY,MAUREEN ALMAZ
Graduation Date:
12/19/2014

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Classrooms ( jstor )
Correspondence principle ( jstor )
Correspondence study ( jstor )
Experimentation ( jstor )
Honesty ( jstor )
Promises ( jstor )
Recreation ( jstor )
Shoplifting ( jstor )
Toys ( jstor )
Verbalization ( jstor )
Psychology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
correspondence
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
born-digital ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
Psychology thesis, Ph.D.

Notes

Abstract:
Verbal-nonverbal 'correspondence' is defined as consistency between what one says and what one does; by contrast, 'noncorrespondence' refers to a lack of such consistency. Previous research has examined correspondence in either a 'say-do' sequence, in which the subject makes a verbal commitment and then has an opportunity to respond (thus, correspondence would be akin to 'keeping a promise'), or a 'do-say' sequence, in which the student is given the opportunity to respond and then is asked what (s)he did (akin to 'telling the truth'). Because both forms of behavior are valuable, the purpose of the current research is to examines the influence of two potential determinants: the likelihood that one would (or would not) engage in the response promised or reported, and whether engaging (or not) would be detected. Results are discussed in terms of how each variable might be used to increase correspondence and decrease noncorrespondence. ( en )
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2014.
Local:
Adviser: IWATA,BRIAN A.
Local:
Co-adviser: FARRAR,MICHAEL J.
Electronic Access:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2016-12-31
Statement of Responsibility:
by Kathryn G Horton.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Embargo Date:
12/31/2016
Resource Identifier:
974007353 ( OCLC )
Classification:
LD1780 2014 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 SOME DETERMINANTS OF VERBAL-NONVERBAL CORRESPONDENCE By KATHRYN G. HORTON A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2014

PAGE 2

2 2014 Kathryn G. Horton

PAGE 3

3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Through the course of my graduate career I have been fortunate to have the unwavering support of many family and friends, too many t o mention; I will be forever grateful for their encouragement. I would also like to thank my labmates and undergraduate students for their feedback and assistance in data collection. In particular, I am appreciative of the significant contributions made b y Sarah Mead throughout the course of this project. I thank the members of my committee, Drs. Maureen Conroy, M. Jeffery Farrar, and Timothy R. Vollmer for their thoughtful comments and edits. F inally, and most importantly, I would like to recognize Dr. Br ian A. Iwata for years of invaluable guidance, instruction, and support

PAGE 4

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................3 LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................6 LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................7 ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................................8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................9 Definition and Classification of Correspondence .....................................................................9 Early Research on Correspondence ........................................................................................10 Limitations of Previous Research ...........................................................................................12 Effects of Baseline Probability of Verbal and Nonverbal Responses ....................................12 Detectability of Engagement ..................................................................................................15 2 GENERAL METHOD ............................................................................................................18 Subjects, Setting, and Materials..............................................................................................18 Pre-experimental Assessments ...............................................................................................18 Preference Assessments ..........................................................................................................19 General Procedure and Experimental Design .........................................................................20 Say-do Sequence .............................................................................................................20 Do -say Sequence .............................................................................................................21 Response Measurement and Reliability ..................................................................................21 Manipulation of Probability ....................................................................................................22 Correspondence Expected Conditions ....................................................................................22 Do (high-p) ......................................................................................................................22 Do Not Do (low-p) ..........................................................................................................22 Say (hi gh p) .....................................................................................................................22 Say Not (low-p) ...............................................................................................................23 Noncorrespondence Expected Conditions ..............................................................................23 Do Not Do (high-p) .........................................................................................................23 Do (low-p) .......................................................................................................................23 Say Not (highp) ..............................................................................................................23 Say (low-p) ......................................................................................................................24 Confederate .............................................................................................................................24 Manipulation of Detectability .................................................................................................24 3 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................25 Results.....................................................................................................................................25

PAGE 5

5 Discussion and Implications ...................................................................................................29 LIST OF REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................38 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .........................................................................................................40

PAGE 6

6 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Say-Do and Do-Say Sequences. ........................................................................................33 3-2 Subject Demographics .......................................................................................................33 3-3 Result Summary .................................................................................................................34

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1 Correspondence and noncorrespondence for say-do sequence (top panel) and do-say sequence (bottom panel) for Allen (top graph) and Richard (bottom graph). ...................35 3-2 Correspondence and noncorrespondence for say-do sequence (top panel) and do-say sequence (bottom panel) for Keith (top graph) and Zane (bottom graph). ........................36 3-3 Correspondence and noncorrespondence across trials for say-do sequence (top panel) and do-say sequence (bottom panel) for Gabe. ..................................................................37

PAGE 8

8 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy SOME DETERMINANTS OF VERBAL-NONVERBAL CORRESPONDENCE By Kathryn G. Horton December 2014 Chair: Brian Iwata Major: Psychology Verbalresearch has examined correspondence in either what (s)he did (aki purpose of the current research is to examines the influence of two potential determinants: the likelihood that one would (or would not) engage in the response promised or reported (the baseline probability of the response), and the likelihood that engaging in the response (or not) would be detected. Results are discussed in terms of how each variable might be used to increase correspondence and decrease noncorrespondence.

PAGE 9

9 CH APTER 1 INTRODUCTION Definition and Classification of Correspondence In the behavior analysis literature, verbalrefers to discrepancy between these behaviors (Karlan & Rusch, 1982). Previous research on correspondence has examined the relationship between verbal and nonverbal behavior across two types of sequences (Israel, 1978; Lloyd, 2002). In the say-do sequence, the subject is asked or prompted to make a statement about future nonverbal behavior and subsequently is given the opportunity to engage in the nonverbal response. In the do-say sequence, the subject is given the opportunity to engage in some response and subsequently is asked to report on his or her behavior. The present research examines contextual variables that may influence these relations. Israel (1978) proposed two types of correspondence for both sequences. Positive correspondence involved a verbal statement that one will (or did) emit a response and doing (or having done) it (i.e., saying and then doing X, or doing and then saying X). Negative correspondence involved the absence of a verbal statement and response (i.e., not saying and then not doing X, or positive and negative correspondence, authors have proposed further variations. Karlan and discussing positive and negative correspondence and noncorrespondence with respect to both producing behavior, (saying one will do X) and inhibiting behavior (saying one will not do X). Matthews, Shimoff, and Catania (1997) proposed that the term noncorrespondence be replaced with negative correspondence: If positive correspondence is saying and doing X or saying not and not doing X, then the inverse (negative correspondence) should be saying but not doing X or

PAGE 10

10 not saying but doing X. Subsequently, Stokes, Osnes, and Guevremont (1987) argued against this proposition, noting that the true inverse of correspondence is simply noncorrespondence, and that parsimony is better served by avoiding unnecessarily complex terminology. An argument in favor of retaining the categorizations of positive and negative correspondence as the presence or absence of behavior might facilitate terminological precision, but negative correspondence, particularly as defined by Israel (1978) and subsequently by Karlan and Rusch (1982) , is not helpful in applied work because not saying and not doing leaves nothing to be measured as an index of consistency. Therefore, a more useful analysis might emerge from examining the r nonoccurrence of corresponding behavior separately across both the say do and do say sequences. The resulting conceptualization yields two types of correspondence: verbal assent with congruent nonverbal behavior, and verbal dissent with congruent nonverb al behavior; and two types of noncorrespondence: verbal assent without congruent nonverbal behavior and verbal dissent without congruent nonverbal behavior. These four relations can be studied across both a say do and do say sequence to produce eight poss ible relations between verbal and nonverbal behavior (see Table 3 1 ). Early Research on Correspondence Early studies on correspondence attempted to determine whether emitting specific verbal behavior would affect nonverbal behavior. Examples of stud ies on verbal control of nonverbal behavior include target responses such as lever pressing (Bem, 1967), resistance to rule breaking students (Whitman, Scibak, Butler, Richter, & Johnson (1982), playing with toys (Sherman, 1964; Risley & Hart, 1968), and sharing with and praising peers (Rogers Warren & Baer, 1976).

PAGE 11

11 Risley and Hart (1968) were the first to describe training procedures that produced generalized correspo ndence between verbal and nonverbal behavior as a direct result of reinforcement contingencies. The experimenters measured baseline levels of play with various toys and activities in a group context as well as verbal reports of play. Free play preceded t he verbal report; thus, the experiment was conducted in a do say sequence. During baseline, reinforcement was delivered contingent on any verbal report, regardless of nonverbal behavior. During the reinforcement of content condition, reinforcement was del ivered only for verbal reports of play with a specific activity that had occurred rarely during baseline, regardless of whether subjects engaged in that particular activity. Finally, during the reinforcement of correspondence condition, reinforcement was d elivered for verbal reports of play with the target activity only if the report matched the previously emitted nonverbal behavior. Reinforcement of correspondence was required to produce accurate reporting of behavior, and, following exposure to that cond ition, children accurately reported their behavior when novel activities were selected say do sequence . They selected activities that occurred at a low rate ( low probability or low p items) across subjects. Conditions of baseline, reinforcement of content, and reinforcement of correspondence were similar to those described by Risley and Hart (1968). Say do and do say correspondence was measured across two gro ups and three leisure items. Group A was trained in a say do sequence across two leisure items then switched to a do say sequence for a third item; Group B was trained in a do say sequence across two leisure items then switched to a say do sequence for a third item. Results indicated that Group A showed correspondence across both the say do (for first two leisure items) and do say (for the third leisure item) sequences, but Group B showed low and variable rates of correspondence in the do say sequence (for the first

PAGE 12

12 two items) and then achieved correspondence under the say do sequence (for the third item). Thus, the say do training was superior to the do say training in that it produced faster and greater correspondence between verbal and nonverbal behavio r. Furthermore, with respect to the performance of Group B, it seemed that a history with say do training increased correspondence between verbal and nonverbal behavior under the do say training. Limitations of Previous Research Since these studies, the utility of the training procedures has been replicated, and specific arrangements to increase generalization (Baer, 1984, 1987) and maintenance (Guevremont, 1986) of correspondence have been examined. Thus far, the conditions under which corresponden ce and noncorespondence are more or less likely to occur under baseline conditions have received limited attention because the goal of research has been to increase correspondence when it was low initially. One logical determinant of correspondence could be the baseline probability of the behavior being promised or reported. Because previous researchers sought to establish correspondence, the focus of this research was on low probability nonverbal and verbal behavior, and detectability of responding was v ariable across studies. Thus, it is possible that subjects would have shown correspondence for high probability, high detectability responses, or both, but those data were not collected. The purpose of the current research is to determine the relative inf luence of these two variables, probability and detectability, on correspondence and noncorrespondence. Effects of Baseline Probability of Verbal and Nonverbal Responses Two studies evaluated the baseline accuracy of correspondence in preschool children. deFreitas Ribeiro (1989) examined the truthfulness of reports of play (i.e., do say sequence), whereas Baer and Detrich (1990) examined promise keeping (i.e., say do sequence).

PAGE 13

13 De Freitas Ribeiro (1989) sought to determine if and how correspondence and noncorrespondence were affected across individual and group reporting contexts in a do say sequence. Eight children ranging in age from 3 to 5 years participated. Conditions were arranged such that correspondence was observed initially (high probability re ports were requested) but reinforcement was arranged for noncorrespondence in subsequent conditions (low probability reports were requested). During baseline, the authors measured the accuracy of verbal reports about previous nonverbal behavior. Durin g reinforcement of play in an individual context, the experimenter delivered reinforcement for any report of play, regardless of accuracy. Contingencies were similar during reinforcement of play in a group context; however, children had the opportunity to observe peers receive reinforcement for reports of play whether accurate or not. During reinforcement of correspondence, the experimenter delivered reinforcement only for reports that were accurate in both individual and group contexts. Finally, during noncontingent reinforcement, reinforcers were delivered prior to reporting. Results indicated that, under baseline conditions, all subjects except for one demonstrated do say correspondence. Under reinforcement of any report of play in an individual cont ext, five of eight subjects contacted reinforcement for noncorresondence in the first trial of the condition because they claimed to play with an item that they had not. Of these five subjects, two continued to report that they played with all of the toys when they had not, thereby maximizing reinforcement. Interestingly, it was the eldest two subjects who demonstrated this response pattern. Under reinforcement of any report of play in a group context, three of the subjects who had shown little to no ins tances of noncorrespondence began to lie about their behavior. One subject switched from nearly 100% correspondence in the baseline and individual reporting conditions to 100% correspondence to

PAGE 14

14 noncorrespondence was made after a peer was overheard asking to share a secret outside of the session. In this study, subjects initially showed correspondence for high probability responses before learning to maximize reinforcement for re porting on play regardless of previous nonverbal behavior. Baer and Detrich (1990 ) examined correspondence between verbal and nonverbal behavior in a say do sequence, testing the extent to which preschoolers kept their promise about first high probabil ity and then low probability responses under conditions of no consequences, reinforcement of verbalization, and reinforcement of correspondence. Four children participated. Pre session verbalizations and post session reinforcement (depending on the phas e) were delivered in the hallway, away from other subjects. During baseline, subjects were brought to a room to play freely. The purpose of this condition was to ensure subjects had contact with all available toys. During verbalization free choice, the experimenter showed pictures of the six available items and asked the subject to name an item with which the subject intended to play. The experimenter clarified that the subject could play with other items, too. During verbalization restricted choice, the experimenter showed pictures of three toys played with by the subject least during baseline (low probability toys) and asked the subject to name one item (s)he intended to play with before returning to the room. No consequences were provided post sessi on. During reinforcement of correspondence restricted choice, the experimenter again showed pictures of the three toys played with the least during baseline (low probability toys) and also showed prizes the subject could earn for playing only with the nam ed item. Following the play with just X today, and you did, so you can p

PAGE 15

15 26). Results indicated high rates of correspondence under the verbalization free condition, variable but lowe r rates of correspondence under verbalization restricted choice condition, and high rates of correspondence under reinforcement of correspondence condition. Based on results from the above studies, it appears that subjects, for the most part, demonstrate correspondence between verbal and nonverbal behavior across both say do and do say sequences ( i.e., subjects keep their promises and tell the truth, respectively ) when the baseline probability of the response is high. As noted previously, most research o n correspondence has attempted to increase correspondence , examine the controlling effect that verbalizations have on nonverbal behavior , or both , which necessitates e xamining the development of correspondence when it does not exist or when verbal control over responses is not readily occurring. Thus, it is not surprising that the majority of studies selected low probability responses to increase, including: selecting nutritious over nonnutritious food options (Baer, Blount, Detrich & Stokes, 1987); variou s play behaviors (Guevremont, Osnes & Stokes, 1986) and peer directed talk, straightening mats, on task behavior, and hand raising (Guevremont, Osnes , & Stokes, 1986b). A question that remains unanswered is whether probability is a determinant of correspon dence. That is, if high and low prob ability requests are alternated , does correspondence and noncorrespondence change reliably independent of consequences? Detectability of Engagement Some research in the area of child development has focused on child their transgressions or make their lack of verbal nonverbal correspondence less detectable . Talawar and Lee (2002, 2008) observed that, when exposed to a situation in which a child was told not to peek at a target item, younger child ren (3 5 year olds) admitted to playing with the toy

PAGE 16

16 they had denied peeking at, whereas older children (7 8 year olds) feigned ignorance. The although such a hypothetical construct fails to explain the basis for responding. A more may be influenced by their ability to discriminate whether a response is easily dete cted by others. For example, Risley and Hart (1968) found that even preschoolers could be taught to engage in accurate do say reporting under conditions in which responses were highly detectable. During the report period, which occurred in a group context , the experimenter pointed to blocks that had was accurate. Thus, the experimenter explicitly noted that a response could be detected and delivered reinforceme nt for accurate reporting of highly detectable behaviors. Other examples of responding apparently influenced by detectability were reported by Hundert and Bucher (1978) and by Wysocki, Hall, Iwata, and Riordan (1979). Hundert and Bucher examined childr grading completed math worksheets. Children generally graded accurately when no consequences were delivered but overestimated their grades when reinforcement was delivered for improvement in performance. Accuracy increased again only when an announcement was made that grading would be checked and that a penalty would be imposed for inaccurate grading. Wysocki et al. attempted to improve the exercise behavior of college students under conditions where monitoring by experimenters would be difficult. The subjects submitted personal items as collateral, which could be earned back by reporting that they had met their stated exercise goals. To increase the accuracy of data collection, the authors required subjects to exercise in the pres ence of other subjects, who collected reliability data. With this data collection arrangement, exercise occurred under conditions that were more readily

PAGE 17

17 behavior . Finally, McNeese, Egli, Marshall, Schnelle, and Risley (1976) reported that instructions indicating a response was more likely to be observed influenced shoplifting behavior in a department store. The authors first evaluated the effect of posting gen eral anti shoplifting signs, which were somewhat effective in reducing rates of shoplifting. The authors then evaluated the effect of flagging merchandise often targeted by shoplifters. They tagged specific items with signs on the clothing racks or wall were comprised of cardboard covered in red foil and were affixed to racks that contained specified merchandise . This procedure was successful at reducing rates of shoplifting to near zero. The authors concluded that explicit identification of frequent shoplifting targets implied closer surveillance and a heightened degree of detection, thereby decreasing rates o f shoplifting more dramatically. Based on the above research, it appears that correspondence would be negatively influenced under conditions of low detectability because consequences cannot be delivered accurately. In studies in which reinforcement of any report, including noncorrespondence, was reinforced Warren & Baer, 1976) , the absence of aversive consequences, the delivery of appetitive consequences for noncorrespondence, or both, apparently taught subjects (incorrectly) that their performance was not being observed and that incorrect reports would not be detected. On the other hand, correspondence might be positively influenced under conditions of high detectability beca use engagement in response is likely to be detected (McNees et al., 1976).

PAGE 18

18 CHAPTER 2 GENERAL METHOD Subjects, Setting, and Materials All subjects attended an elementary school for students with intellectual disabilities. Allen was a 14 year old boy dia gnosed with Autism. He communicated in simple sentences but difficult to understand to novel listeners. Richard was a 5 year old boy diagnosed with autism and ADHD; Keith was a 5 year old boy diagnosed with other health impairment; Zane and Gabe were both 4 years old at the start of the study and diagnosed as developmentally delayed. The four preschool aged subjects communicated in full sentences and their speech was easily intelligible. Trials were conducted in an empty classroom at the school. The room contained a table, chairs, toys, as well as high preference (HP) and low preference (LP) edible(s) in separate containers. Four trials were conducted per day, three to five days per we ek, and each trial was approximately 3 minutes total. Pre experimental Assessments Prior to inclusion in the study, all subjects were screened for their ability to follow instructions and to report on previous behavior. First, each subject was given unlikely to complete. Only one of each wa s probed per subject. Second, subjects were asked as questions about the session while returning to the classroom. Experimenters only asked questions for wh

PAGE 19

19 havior were required for in inclusion in the study. Finally, subjects were instructed by the experimenter to remain in the room for two minutes while they stepped outside. Subjects who remained in the room without attempting to leave then they were includ ed; however, subjects attempted to leave for any reason other than requesting to use the bathroom were excluded from the study. Preference Assessments A paired stimulus preference assessment (Fisher, Piazza, Bowman, Owens, & Sleven, 1992) was conducted with nine food items to identify highly preferred (HP) edibles to serve as the high probability response. Edible items were presented in pairs, each item paired with every other item once, and the subject was prompted to choose his or her favorite. Upon s election, the subject was allowed to consume the item. Data on selections were recorded, and HP items were those the subject selected on at least 85% of trials. A single stimulus preference assessment (Pace, Ivancic, Edwards, Iwata, & Page, 1985) was c onducted with up to nine food items to identify low preference (LP) edibles to serve as the low probability response. The experimenter prompted the subject to taste each item prior to the trial. Following this initial exposure, the experimenter presented each item singly (up to five times in random order), and informed the subject that (s)he could either eat the item or slide the plate back to the experimenter if (s)he did not want to eat it. Data on consumption and refusal were recorded, and LP items were those the subject refused on four of the five trials. A second observer simultaneously and independently recorded data during at least 20% cords and scoring an agreement if both observers recorded the same selection or a disagreement if each observer recorded a different selection. Percent agreement

PAGE 20

20 was calculated by dividing the number of agreements over the number of trials and multiplying by 100. Mean agreement across all subjects was 100%. General Procedure and Experimental Design The session room contained all materials previously mentioned. Each trial began when the experimenter made a request. The experimenter then left the subject a lone in the room for 2 min, during which the subject was monitored covertly via a one way window or video camera. At the end of each trial, the experimenter returned and engaged the subject in brief and unrelated conversation. No consequences were delive red contingent on responding. Conditions were compared in a multielement design. All subjects moved sequentially through four trials per day, two in a say do sequence (one relative to the HP and one relative to the LP) and two in a do say sequence (one re lative to the HP and one relative to the LP). The first condition was manipulation of probability while detectability was held constant. Subjects were exposed to four trials in which correspondence was expected followed by four trials in which noncorresp ondence was expected. The second condition was manipulation of detectability while probability is held constant. During this condition, procedures expected and previously shown to produce noncorrespondence were conducted under highly detectable condition s in an attempt determine whether this variable would reverse the pattern of responding from noncorrespondence to correspondence. Say d o Se quence In the say do sequence, the experimenter made a request and asked the subject to state experimenter left the room for 2 min. Upon returning, the experimenter concluded the t rial without commenting on any subject behavior.

PAGE 21

21 Do say S equence In the do say sequence, the experimenter made a brief request then left the room for 2 min. If the subject asked a question, the experimenter repeated the request but gave no additional in formation. Upon returning, the experimenter repeated the initial request and asked al without commenting on any subject behavior. Response Measurement and Reliability The dependent variable was correspondence, defined as congruence between verbal and recorded via pencil and paper. Nonverbal behavior was recorded via permanent product measurement. Data collectors compared the pre trial and post trial count of edible(s) to determine whether the promised and/or reported behavior occurred. Thus, correspondence was scored if the subject promised/reported eating the HP or LP and there were fewer edibles remaining following the trial or promised/reported not eati ng the HP or LP and there was the same amount. Noncorrespondence was scored if the subject promised/reported eating the HP or LP and there was the same amount or promised/reported not eating the HP or LP and there were fewer following the trial. A second observer simultaneously and independently record ed data during at least 20% of trials. Interobserver agreement was determined for verbal behavior by comparing observer records and scoring an agreement if both observers recorded the same subject respons e and a disagreement if the observers recorded a different subject response. Percent agreement was calculated by dividing the frequency of agreements by total opportunities. Interobserver

PAGE 22

22 agreement was determined for nonverbal behavior by dividing the sma ller over the larger number of edibles. Both scores were converted to percentages by multiplying by 100. Mean agreement for both verbal and nonverbal behavior across subjects was 100%. Manipulation of Probability During this condition, 20 HP and 20 LP ed ibles were placed in separate containers prior to each trial. The large number of edibles and the fact that they were stored in opaque containers created the appearance that consumption would not be noticeable. Because data collection included permanent p roduct recording and in order to equalize the likelihood that engagement across trials was equally undetectable, fresh bins of edibles were used for each of the four trials per day. Correspondence Expected Conditions Do (high p) Upon entering the room, the experimenter state d Here are ( HP and LP ). I want you to eat ( HP ). Will you do that eat (HP) for me? (Wait ed for subject to . right back . then left the classroom. After 2 min elapsed , the experimenter returned and engaged in brief and unrelated conversation with the subject. Do Not Do (low p) Upon entering the room Here are ( HP and LP). I do not want you to eat ( LP ). Are you going to eat ( LP )? (Wait ed for subject to say right back The experimenter then left the classroom. After 2 min elapsed , the experimenter returned and engaged in brief and unrelated conversation with the subject. Say (high p) Upon entering the room, the experimenter state Here are ( HP and LP ). I want you to the classroom. After 2 min elapsed , the experimenter

PAGE 23

23 return ed and said I asked you to eat ( HP ). Did you eat ( HP ed for a response. The experimenter then engage d in brief and unrelated conversation with the subject. Say Not (low p) Here are ( HP and LP ). I do not want you to eat ( the classroom. After 2 min elapsed, the expe rimenter return ed and said not to eat ( LP ). Did you and wait ed for a response . The experimenter will engaged in brief and unrelated conversation with the subject. Noncorrespondence Expected Conditions Do Not Do (high p) U pon entering the room, the experimenter state d Here are ( HP and LP ). I do not want you to eat ( HP). Ar e you going to eat ( HP )? (Wait ed back. The experimenter then left the classroom. After 2 min elapsed , the experimenter returned and engaged in brief and unrelated conversation with the subject. Do (low p) Upon entering the room, the experimenter state d Here are ( HP and LP ). I want you to eat ( LP ). Will you do eat (LP) for me? (Wait ed for subject to sa ) back then left the classroom. After 2 min elapsed , the experimenter returned and engaged in brief and unrelated conversation with the subject. Say Not (high p) Upon entering the room , the experimenter Here are (HP and LP) . I do not want you to eat ( HP The experimenter then left the classroom. After 2 min elapsed, the experimenter return ed and said I asked you not to not to eat ( HP ). Did you eat (HP) ed fo r a response. The experimenter then engaged in brief and unrelated conversation with the subject.

PAGE 24

24 Say (low p) Here are (HP and LP). I want you to experimenter the n left the classroom. After 2 min elapsed, the experimenter return ed and sa id I asked you to eat ( LP ). Did you eat (LP) ed for a response. The experimenter then engaged in brief and unrelated conversation with the subject. Confederate A confederate was added to trials when noncorrespondence was variable or not occurring. All procedures were the same, but the confederate would enter after the subject had been alone for 1 minute and would remain for 2 minutes. While with the subject, the confederate would make enticing statements regarding the HP and dissuading statements regarding the LP all the while drawing attention to the fact that engagement in either response would likely go undetected. Manipulation of Detectability During this con dition, 1 HP and 1 LP edible were placed on a plate prior to each trial, creating the appearance that consumption would be noticeable. The same trial script and procedures from the previous noncorrespondence expected conditions were used.

PAGE 25

25 CHAPTER 3 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Results The top graph of Figure 3-1 shows data for Allen. The upper panel in this and subsequent graphs shows data on correspondence and noncorrespondence across trials in the saydo sequence; the lower panel shows data on correspondence and noncorrespondence across trials in the do-say sequence. The data points represent the performance requested: to either consume (YES) or not consume (NO) the HP or LP item. Under the first exposure to high-probability conditions (Yes HP and No LP), Allen showed correspondence across HP and LP items for both sequences. Under the initial low-probability conditions (No HP and YES LP), noncorrespondence was observed relative to HP and LP items for the say-do sequence and relative to the HP item in the do-say sequence. However, he maintained his honesty relative to the LP in the do-say sequence because he did not eat the item when asked and accurately reported that he did not. During a return to high-probability conditions, correspondence was recaptured. When low-probability conditions were reintroduced, the previously observed pattern was generally replicated: noncorrespondence relative to HP and LP items across the say-do and do-say sequence with one exception (HP in the do-say sequence), and honesty relative to the LP in the doresponding was unaffected. That is, he continued to break his promise by eating a single HP item while not eating a single LP item, but lied about not eating the HP when he did while maintaining his honesty about not eating the LP when he did not. The bottom graph of Figure 3-1 shows data for Richard. Under the first exposure to highand low-probability conditions, Richard also maintained correspondence and noncorrespondence relative to the HP and LP across the say-do and do-say sequences, respectively. During a return

PAGE 26

26 to high probability conditions, correspondence was recaptured. However, during the subsequent low probability condition, two instances of c orrespondence relative to the HP in the say do sequence and one instance relative to the LP in the do say sequence were observed. By the end of low probabilty condition, noncorrespondence was stable across items (HP and LP) and sequences (say do and do sa y). In the last condition, when detectability was manipulated, correspondence was observed relative to the HP in say do responding (i.e., he promised not to eat the HP and did not) and relative to both the HP and LP in do say sequence (i.e., he accurately reported that he did and did not eat the HP and LP, respectively). However, noncorrespondence continued relative to the LP in the say do sequence because he continued to break his promise by not eating the LP. The top graph of Figure 3 2 shows data fo r Keith. Under the first high probability condition, correspondence was observed across both items and sequences. When the condition changed to low probability, noncorrespondence was observed across HP and LP items for the say do sequence except for one instance of correspondence relative to the HP item (in the first trial, he did not eat the HP when instructed not to do so), as well as HP and LP items for the do say sequence. These patterns of responding were repeated when correspondence was observed du ring a return to the high probability condition, and noncorrespondence was observed with one exception relative to the HP in the do say sequence during the low probability condition. The bottom graph of Figure 3 2 shows data for Zane. As was the case for other subjects, correspondence was observed under high probability conditions across HP and LP items for both the say do and do say sequences. However, during the first exposure to the low probability condition, across both the say do and do say sequence s, noncorrespondence was observed relative to the HP, whereas correspondence was observed relative to the LP (he kept his promise

PAGE 27

27 by eating the LP and accurately reported that he did so, respectively). With the addition of a confederate, noncorrespondece across HP and LP items across the say do and do say sequences was observed and maintained following the removal of the confederate. Correspondence and noncorrespondence were observed during a return to high and low probability conditions, respectively. W hen detectability was manipulated, correspondence was observed relative to the LP items in the say do sequence and relative to both the HP and LP items in the do say sequence. Noncorrespondence was observed relative to the HP in the say do sequence becaus e he ate the HP despite promising not to do so. Figure 3 3 shows data for Gabe. Under high probability conditions, correspondence was observed across items and sequences. However, like Zane, a confederate was required to produce stable noncorrespondence. During the first exposure to the low probability condition, correspondence was observed for the HP and LP items in the say do sequence with one exception, noncorrespondnece was observed relative to LP items and one of the three trials for HP items in the do say sequence. With the addition of the confederate, noncorrespondence across both items and sequences was observed and maintained following the removal of the confederate. During a return to high probability and low probability conditions, correspond ence and noncorrespondence were observed, respectively. However, when detectability was manipulated, responding was unaffected. That is, Gabe continued to break his promise by eating the single HP item and not eating the single LP item, as well as lying about not eating the HP when he did while maintaining his honesty by not eating the single LP and saying that he did not do so. Table 1 summarizes results across subjects. Rows indicate the ratio, percentage, or both, of intended relations observed ac ross the say do and do say sequences; column totals average the

PAGE 28

28 intended relations per sequence across HP and LP items. Manipulating probability and detectability successfully produced the intended relation in an average of 80.5% of trials in the say do s equence (range 68.2% to 91.7%) and an average of 82.7% of trials in the do say sequence (range 56.3% to 93.6%). In the present study, all five subjects maintained correspondence across the say do and do say sequences during both exposures to high probabili ty/low detectability conditions. However, noncorrespondece was less reliable under low probability/low detectability conditions. Of the five subjects, only two maintained noncorrespondence relative to LP items and three relative to HP items under low pro bability/low Generally, the manipulation of probability affected correspondence and noncorrespondence as expected. However, the probability manipulation fa iled to produce noncorrespondnece in a few subjects. The reasons as to why conditions of low probability failed to produce noncorrespondence in some participants is unknown. It might be the case that subjects who did not engage in noncorrespondnece had a n extended history of reinforcement for congruence between S D responding (i.e. S want you to eat (LP). probability response and engaged in it. Likewise, it is possible that after the experimenter said, asked you to eat (LP). that the subject accurately reported that s/he did not and did so, respectively. Similarly, subjects might not engage in noncorrespondence if they have strong ly rule goverened behavior (i.e. a history of reinforcement for complying with rules). Future research might examine other

PAGE 29

29 determinants of correspondence and noncorrespondence such as the type of consequences (i.e., appetitive versus aversive). Discussi on and Implications The manipulation of probability generally influenced correspondence and noncorrespondence as expected. However, the probability manipulation failed to produce noncorrespondnece in several instances (e.g., Allen, Gabe, and Zane). The r easons why conditions of low probability failed to produce noncorrespondence in some subjects is unknown. It might be the case that subjects who did not engage in noncorrespondnece had a n extended, previous history of reinforcement for congruence between s ay do responding, ( do say eat LP. bjects assented to the low probability response and engaged in it. Likewise, it is possible that after the experimenter said I asked you to eat LP. Did you s/he did not and did so, respectively. Similarly, subjects might not engage in noncorrespondence if they had well established repertoire of instruction following behavior (i.e. a history of reinforcement for following rules). It is likely that, when used , the addition of the confederate was successful in shifting correspondence to noncorrespondence by calling attention to the fact that consequences were not in effect. It appears that other subjects tested the contingencies and discovered the lack of cons equences independently, and the reasons why two subjects required explicit coaxing are unknown. Future research might continue to examine the role of social interactions in the development of correspondence and noncorrespondence. The manipulation of detectability also produced mixed results. For two the four subjects who completed the condition, the manipulation of detectability was mostly successful in

PAGE 30

30 reversing noncorrespondence to correspondence but with slightly different patterns of responding. Interestingly, one subject, Richard, failed to reverse to correspondence relative to the LP, whereas another subject, Zane, failed to reverse to correspondence relative to the HP, both during the say rrespondence to correspondence in the do say sequence might be an artifact of the order of events. That is, if the subject was noncompliant (e.g., s/he ate the HP when instructed not to or did not eat the LP when instructed to do so), s/he could still rep ort accurately on their transgression, thereby demonstrating correspondence despite noncompliance. This pattern occurred for both Richard and accurately repor ted both responses). Particularly with respect to food, caregivers might create strong histories regarding eating and not eating certain foods. For example, they often establish rules about not eating candy or desserts before dinner and/or finishing vege tables or less preferred foods before dessert. Another consideration as to why the detectability manipulation might have not been as robust as expected is the extended history of no consequences for responding during the study. Subjects experienced at le ast four conditions (minimum of 12 trials per sequence, 24 trials total) with no consequences for either correspondence or noncorrespondence. Thus, it is possible that reversing from noncorrespondence to correspondence would have been more likely if such an extended history of no consequences had been abbreviated. Finally, much of the previous research on the topic of correspondence across either the say do or do say sequence or both was conducted with typically developing children, whereas subjects in the current study were identified as developmentally delayed. Given their diagnosis, it is possible that the current subjects experienced closer supervision in general. It remains to be

PAGE 31

31 seen whether there would be differences in baseline rates of correspo ndence and noncorrespondence given the two variables of interest, probability and detectability, across diagnoses or when directly comparing typical versus atypical children. Future research might examine the etiology of correspondence and noncorrespond ence. For example, what histories of reinforcement produce generalized correspondence and noncorrespondence? Also, what is the role of social interactions in the development of correspondence and noncorrespondence? Variables of interest may include mani pulation of probability, detectability, social mediation, and aversive versus appetitive consequences. It is possible that histories of reinforcement responsible for the development of generalized correspondence and noncorrespondence may include the deliv ery of appetitive consequences or the removal of aversive stimuli for correspondence . Likewise, a history of punishment for noncorrespondence may establish a history of correspondence to avoid aversive consequences. A combination of the antecedents examin ed in the current study with the aforementioned consequences with might suggest a package approach to developing a preferred repertoire in which verbal and nonverbal behavior show a high degree of correspondence in both directions and across a wide range o f performances. An additional variable might be the specific phrasing used to request a promise in the say do sequence and a report in the do say sequence -simply discrimi nated the question being asked when they demonstrated correspondence under high probability conditions, requiring more explicit promises and reports by asking the subject to identify what they did and did not eat by name might affect results. Finally, the relevance of these findings to clinical application remains to be seen. However, one might assume that arranging baseline environments that facilitate correspondence (high probability responses

PAGE 32

32 whose performance can be verified ) and providing dense reinf orcement for correspondence would be ideal in generating a repertoire of keeping promises and telling the truth, respectively.

PAGE 33

33 Table 3 1. Say Do and Do Say Sequences. V erbal B ehavior V erbal B ehavior N onverbal B ehavior : Engages Co rrespondence Noncorrespondence N onverbal B ehavior : Does NOT Engage Noncorrespondence Correspondence Table 3 2. Subject Demographics Name Age Diagnosis Allen 14 Autism Spectrum Disorder Richard 5 Autism, ADHD Keith 5 Ot her Health Impaired Zane 4 Developmentally Delayed Gabe 4 Developmentally Delayed

PAGE 34

34 Table 3 3. Result Summary Percent of Intended Relations Observed Say Do Sequence HP LP Total Do Say Sequence HP LP Total Allen 7/8 87.5% 7/8 87.5% 14/16 87.5% 6/8 75% 3/8 37.5% 9/16 56.3% Richard 6/8 75% 6/8 75% 12/16 75% 7/8 87.5% 8/8 100% 15/16 93.6% Keith 5/6 83.3% 6/6 100 % 11/12 9 1 . 7 % 5/6 83.3% 6/6 10 0% 11/12 91 . 7 % Zane 8/10 80% 8/10 80% 16/20 8 0 % 10/10 100% 8/10 80% 18/20 90 % Gabe 7/11 63.6% 8/11 72.7% 15/22 68.2 % 8/11 72.7% 10/11 90.9% 18/22 81.8 % Average % 77.9% 83.0% 80.5% 83.7 81.7% 8 2.7 %

PAGE 35

35 Figure 3 1. Correspondence and nonc orrespondence across trials for say do sequence (top panel) and do say sequence (bottom panel) for Allen (top graph) and Richard (bottom graph).

PAGE 36

36 Figure 3 2. Correspondence and noncorrespondence across trials for say do sequence (top panel) and do sa y sequence (bottom panel) for Keith (top graph) and Zane (bottom graph).

PAGE 37

37 Figure 3 3. Correspondence and noncorrespondence across trials for say do sequence (top panel) and do say sequence (bottom panel) for Gabe.

PAGE 38

38 LIST OF REFERENCES Baer, R.A., Bloun t, R.L., Detrich, R., & Stokes, T.F. (1987). Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 179 184. Baer, R.A., & Detrich, R. (1990). Tacting and manding in correspondence training: Effects of child selection of verbalization. Journal of the Experimen tal Analysis of Behavior 54, 23 30. Bem, S.L. (1967). Verbal self control: The establishment of effective self instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74, 485 491. De cting and manding aspects. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51 , 361 367. Fisher, W., Piazza, C.C., Bowman, L.G., Hagopian, L.P., Owens, J.C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons w ith severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 491 498. Guevremont , D.C ., Osnes, P.G., & Stokes, T.F. (1986). Preparation for effective self regulation: The development of generalized verbal control. Journal of Applied B ehavior Analysis, 19 , 99 104. Guevremont, D. C., Osnes, P.G., & Stokes, T.F. (1986b). Programming maintenance after correspondence training interventions with children . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19 , 215 219. Hundert, J. & Bucher, B. (1978) scored arithmetic performance: A practical procedure for maintaining accuracy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11 , 304. Israel, A. C. (1978). Some thoughts on correspondence between saying and doing. Journal of Applied Behavior Ana lysis, 11 , 271 276. deeds. Child Development, 44, 575 581. Karlan, G. R., & Rusch, F. R. (1982). Correspondence between saying and doing: Some thoughts on defining correspondence and future directions for application. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15 , 151 162. Lloyd , K.E. (2002). A review of correspondence training: Suggestions for a revival. The Behavior Analyst, 25, 57 73. Matthews, B.A., Shimoff, E., & C atania, A.C. (1987). Saying and doing: A contingency space analysis . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20 , 69 74.

PAGE 39

39 McNeese, M.P., Egli, D.S., Marshall, R.S., Schnelle, J.F., & Risley, T.R. (1976). Shoplifting prevention: Providing information through signs. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 399 405. Monahan, J. , Psychological reports, 2 9, 1059 1066. Risley, T. R., & Hart, B. (1968). Developing correspondence betw een the non verbal and verbal behavior of preschool children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1 , 267 281. Rogers Warren, A., & Baer, D. M. (1976). Corresponding between saying and doing: Teaching children to share and praise. Journal of Applied Beha vior Analysis, 9 , 335 354. Stokes, T.F., Osnes, P.G., & Guevremont, D.C. (1987). Saying and doing: A commentary on contingency space analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 161 164. Sherman, J. A. (1964). Modification of nonverbal behavior th rough reinforcement of related verbal behavior. Child Development, 35, 717 723. Talawar, V., & Lee, K. (2002). Development of lying to conceal a transgression: Children's control of expressive behaviour during verbal deception . International Journal o f Behavioral Development, 26, 436 444. Child Development, 79 , 866 881 . Whitman, T.L., Scibak, J.W., Butler, K.M., Richter, R., & Johnson, M.R. (1982). Journa l of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15 , 545 564. Wysocki, T., Hall, G., Iwata, B., Riordan, M. (1979). Behavioral management of exercise: Contracting for aerobic points. Journal of Applied Behavior analysis, 12, 55 64.

PAGE 40

40 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Following comp letion of her BS degree in psychology at Smith College in May 2004, Katie began working as a case manager and teacher at The New England Center for Children (NECC) in Southborough, Massachusetts. In September 2005, she enrolled in the m aster s program in a pplied b ehavior a nalysis at Northeastern University under the mentorship of Dr. Jason Bourret. Her research interests included assess ment of skill acquisition (e.g., analysis of prompting and chaining procedures) , reduction of problem behavior (e.g., sid e biased responding and precursor analyses) , and condition ed reinforce ment . During this time, Katie held several clinical positions , including supervis ion of a residential team. In 2010, Katie entered the University of Florida as a doctoral student in ps ychology (behavior analysis) under the supervision of Dr. Brian Iwata. Since then, she has had the opportunity to assist fellow graduates with their research and co authored projects including response response relations, analysis of group contingencies, and the effects of advanced notice on behavior in transitions. While at UF, Katie used her previous clinical and managerial skills to develop a clinical follow up system at the conclusion of research oriented assessments. Additionally, Katie completed sev eral teaching activities at UF, including serving as teaching assistant for the laboratory course in ABA (EAB 4714), and as teaching assistant and instructor for general psychology and introduction to ABA (EAB 3764). In addition to these formal teaching a rrangements, Katie served as lab site supervisor in which capacity she has served as the point person for coordinating schedules (involving 40 undergraduate and graduate students as well as 30 or more subjects in up to 10 research protocols), providing fee dback regarding research sessions and professional demeanor as necessary, and managing consent records for the lab. Upon graduation, Katie will accept the roles of senior clinical consultant and supervisor of company training role with Butterfly Effects, a national consulting company.