See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/234154142

Emergence of Naming in Preschoolers: A Comparison of Multiple and Single

Exemplar Instruction

Article  in  European Journal of Behavior Analysis · December 2007

DOI: 10.1080/15021149.2007.11434278

CITATIONS READS

77 1,573

3 authors, including:

Nirvana Pistoljevic
Columbia University
17 PUBLICATIONS   210 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Advancement of Early Childhood Development (Early Detection and Intervention) with UNICEF View project

Serious Games for Children With Autism View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nirvana Pistoljevic on 12 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2007, 8, 109 - 131 NUMBER 2 (WINTER 2007)
109

Emergence of Naming in Preschoolers: A

Comparison of Multiple and Single Exemplar
Instruction
R. Douglas Greer
Columbia University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences and Teachers College

Lauren Stolfi
The Fred S. Keller School

Nirvana Pistoljevic
Columbia University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences and Teachers College

Several reports have demonstrated the emergence of the Naming capability as a function of multiple
exemplar instructions (MEI). We compared singular exemplar instruction (SEI) and (MEI) on emer-
gence of untaught listener and speaker responses (Naming) by preschool children who were missing
Naming using combined experimental-control group and nested single-case multiple probe designs.
We taught training sets of pictures using MEI to 4-participants and the same sets using SEI to another
4-participants with numbers of instructional presentations for SEI participants matched to the MEI
participants. Naming emerged for the MEI group but did not for the SEI group. Subsequently, the
SEI participants received MEI and Naming emerged. Instructional histories that involve the rotation
of speaker listener responding appear to predict the emergence of Naming. We discuss the findings
in terms of the relation of the MEI as the source of Naming as a higher order operant and whether or
not Naming is a relational frame.
Key words: Naming, multiple exemplar experiences, emergent productive language, verbal behavior,
verbal development, observational learning

Naming is a verbal developmental phenom-
enon wherein a child can emit both listener and
speaker responses following occasions in which
a child hears a tact of a novel stimulus spoken by
another as the child attends to the novel stimu-
lus (Greer & Ross, 2008; Horne & Lowe, 1996,
1997; Horne, Lowe, & Randle, 2004; Lowe &
Horne, 1996b, Lowe, Horne, Harris, & Randle,
2002; Lowe, Horne, & Hughes, 2005). A child
Address correspondence and requests for reprints to the
first author at Programs in Behavior Analysis, Box 76 Teachers
College Columbia University, 525 West 120th Street, New York,
NY 10027 or dgreer3872@aol.com. All of the training data for
the MEI and SEI instruction are available from the first author.
We would like to acknowledge the cooperation of the staff and
children in the CABAS® Fred S. Keller School in which this
experiment was conducted.
109
with Naming can acquire novel listener and
speaker responses for novel stimuli (either single
stimuli or a class of stimuli or a concept) solely
as a function of the observation of stimuli and
hearing tacts for those stimuli—no reinforce-
ment is required. We distinguish Naming as a
verbal developmental capability from the lay-
persons’ usage by capitalizing it throughout this
paper. Current evidence suggests that children
may have component parts of Naming. That is
children may have the listener half where they
can emit the listener component but not the
speaker half or vice versa, or they may be miss-
ing both components (Lowe, Horne, & Randle;
Lowe, Horne, Harris, & Randle; Lowe, Horne,
110 R. Douglas Greer, Lauren Stolfi, and Nirvana Pistoljevic
& Hughes, 2005; Fiorile & Greer, 2007; Greer,
Stolfi, Chavez-Brown, & Rivera-Valdes, 2005).
Naming has been described as a higher order
class involving bi-directional relations (Cata-
nia, 1998, 2007; Horne & Lowe, 1996), joint
stimulus control (Lowenkron, 1996, 1997),
a relational frame (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, &
Roche, 2000), and a higher order verbal operant
that is a verbal developmental capability (Greer
& Keohane, 2005; Greer & Ross, 2008; Horne
& Lowe, 1996).
Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, & Cul-
linan (2001) proposed that Naming was what
distinguished verbal from nonverbal behav-
ior and that what Skinner (1957) proposed
as verbal operants were not distinguishable
from nonverbal operant behavior. They also
proposed that Naming was a relational frame
and a higher order operant. Lowe, Horne and
Hughes (2005) too suggested that Naming
was a higher order class and a distinguishing
characteristic of being verbal, although they
questioned whether Naming was a relational
frame. Horne and Lowe (1996) also identified
Naming as a developmental phenomenon that
they suggest appears at about 2-years of age.
While interpretations differ on whether Naming
is a relational frame or that it is the first higher
order verbal operant (Greer & Ross, 2008),
there appears to be consensus that it is a higher
order class of responding (Catania, 1998, 2007).
Hayes et al. suggested that multiple exemplar
experiences (MEI) were the possible source
for the emergence of Naming. Several experi-
ments have shown that the Naming capability
was induced in children who were missing it
as a function of a particular MEI (Fiorile &
Greer, 2007; Gilic, 2005; Greer et al. 2005;
Greer, Nirgudkar, & Park, 2003; Nirgudkar,
2005). Thus, there is consensus that Naming
is a higher order class and a critical verbal de-
velopmental capability. Furthermore, there is
a growing body of evidence that one source of
the development of Naming is a particular type
of multiple exemplar experiences.
Greer et al. (2005) induced Naming as a
function of MEI for 2-dimensional stimuli
with 18 months old to 5-year-old children
who had language delays. Others replicated
this finding, also with preschoolers with lan-
guage delays (Fiorile & Greer, 2007; Greer,
Nirgudkar, & Park, 2005; Nirgudkar, 2005).
In these experiments, after children who were
missing Naming mastered one or more separate
training subsets of stimuli presented in MEI
fashion, the untaught listener and speaker re-
sponses emerged for the initial set for which it
was previously missing and also for novel sets.
Typically developing 2-year olds, also who were
identified to be missing Naming for objects,
acquired Naming after an MEI intervention
(Gilic, 2005). In the Gilic study eight of ten
typically developing children who were probed
were found to be missing object Naming and
nine of nine 3-year olds who were probed for
Naming were found to have Naming for objects.
When the eight 2-year old children who were
missing Naming received MEI training with
subsets of training stimuli, the missing listener
and speaker responses that were not present
for the initial probe set emerged. Fiorile and
Greer (2007) found that children with severe
language delays, who could not emit the lis-
tener half of Naming for contrived stimuli after
learning contrived tacts, using an echoic to tact
instructional procedure for these stimuli, could
emit the listener response after learning the tact
alone after several sets of stimuli were taught us-
ing MEI. Thus, children with language delays
who were missing Naming acquired Naming
as a function of MEI and typically developing
2-year olds who were missing Naming acquired
Naming as a function of MEI.
Horne and Lowe (1996) suggested that the
echoic was key to the development of Naming.
Lowenkron (1984; 1988, 1989, 1991, 1996,
1997; Lowenkron & Colvin 1992, 1995) pro-
posed that the listener and tact components of
Naming were jointly controlled by the echoic.
Lowenkron and Lowenkron and Colvin used
sign language verbal topographies to demon-
strate the feasibility that the rehearsed sign, as a
substitute for the echoic, produced signed tacts
and listener responses, suggesting that echoics
may function similarly as the reinforcement
source for Naming. In the MEI studies that
have induced Naming, the instruction included
echoic-to-independent tact instruction con-
 Naming: MEI versus SEI
sistent with procedures used in Williams and
Greer (1993), Ross and Greer (2003), Tsiouri
and Greer (2003), and Ross, Nuzzolo, and
Natarelli (2006). Skinner (1957) and Stemmer
(1973) proposed that the cases of emergent
verbal behavior like what we have come to
identify as Naming may result from ostensive
learning or a second order Pavlovian condition-
ing. Regardless of the differing perspectives on
the reinforcement source of Naming, the role of
the listener in speaker-as-own listener (Horne
& Lowe; Horne, Lowe, & Randle; Lodhi &
Greer, 1989; Skinner, 1957) is seen as key in
both the existing findings, and various inter-
pretations of Naming, and in Skinner’s theory.
“We need separate but interlocking accounts
of the behaviors of both speaker and listener
if our explanation of verbal behavior is to be
complete…in many important instances the
listener is also behaving at the same time as a
speaker” (Skinner, 1957, p. 34).
While multiple exemplar instruction led to
Naming for children who were missing Nam-
ing in the above studies, no tests of whether
Naming could emerge with single exemplar
instruction alone have been done. In the
multiple exemplar training in our prior experi-
ments, children alternately rotated responding
as a listener and a speaker across five or more
stimuli in training sets until each response was
mastered in the context of performing all of
the responses to the individual stimuli. That
is they were taught to match a set of training
stimuli while hearing the tacts for the stimuli,
asked to point to the stimuli after hearing the
tacts for the stimuli, emit pure tacts for the
stimuli involving echoic-to independent tact
instruction, and emit intraverbal or impure
tacts for the stimuli also involving echoic-to-
independent tact instruction. In the rotation of
responses across different stimuli, presentations
are arranged such that children cannot obtain a
correct response by echoing responses to prior
stimuli and the different responses and stimuli
are presented in counterbalanced fashion. In
this procedure the responses are presented in
counterbalanced fashion across 5-stimuli in
each training set. However, it is possible that
by teaching each response separately, Nam-
111
ing also might emerge. That is, rather than
rapidly rotating response topographies, it is
possible that discrete training sessions with
each response to the stimuli or single exemplar
instructional presentations could result in the
same or a similar outcome. In the research we
report herein, we compared multiple exemplar
with single exemplar instruction to isolate the
role of the rotation component that is present
in MEI and missing in SEI.
Method
Participants
Eight 3 to 5-year old children, 4 females and
4 males, participated in this study. The children
were chosen to participate in the study because
they did not have a Naming capability; that is,
they did not emit untaught speaker responses
or demonstrate mastery of the listener response
following match to sample mastery while hear-
ing the tacts for the stimuli. In addition they
had the verbal repertoires that appear to be the
necessary prerequisites (Greer & Ross, 2008).
Following pre-experimental probes, verifying
that the children did not have Naming for 2-
dimensional stimuli, they were matched in pairs
according to their verbal repertoires, test scores,
and repertoires from the educational inventory
identified below and then randomly assigned to
either an experimental or control group—four
to the experimental group and four to the
control group. Tables 1 and 2 contain detailed
descriptions of each student, his or her matched
pair, and the group assignment for each student.
The measures of the children’s developmental
levels were done using the Vineland Adaptive
Behavior Scales, either the Interview (1984)
or Classroom Editions (1984), The Preschool
Language Scale (Zimmerman, Steiner, & Pond,
2002), and The Peabody Developmental Motor
Scales, Second Edition (Folio & Fewell, 2000).
These scores are reported in Table 1 and repre-
sented assessments that were done prior to the
students receiving instruction in the school. The
psychologists in the students’ referring school
district conducted these assessments for and
therefore, the versions of the same tests and tests
varied across students. The students’ actual rep-
112 R. Douglas Greer, Lauren Stolfi, and Nirvana Pistoljevic

Table 1. Description of Participants in MEI and SEI Group (The letter E designates assignment to
the Experimental Group, the letter C designates assignment to the control group, and the number the
matched pairing).
Participants Age Diagnosis/Level of Standardized Test PIRK Repertoires
Verbal Capability Scores
1E 4.2 -Behavior Disorder -Vineland Adaptive -Mands/Tacts with
-Listener/Speaker Behavior Scales: autoclitic frames
Emergent Reader Interview Ed. -Following vocal
-Socialization verbal directions
Domain: SS111 -Conversational
-Communication units emitted
Domain: SS109 -Looks at books
-Composite: SS112 appropriately
-Matching and
Pointing/Listener
Repertoires

1C 4.3 -Speech Delay -Peabody -Mands/Tacts with

-Listener/Speaker Developmental: autoclitic frames
Emergent Reader Motor scales-2. -Following vocal
-Fine Motor verbal directions
Quotient: AE 41m -Conversational
-Visual-Motor units emitted
Integration: AE 31m -Looking at books
appropriately
- Appropriate play
skills
-Matching and
Pointing/Listener
repertoires

2E 3.8 -Speech Delay -Preschool -Mands/Tacts with

-Listener/Speaker Language Scale-4: autoclitic frames
-Auditory - Follows vocal
comprehension: *1 verbal directions
-Expressive - Looks at books
communication appropriately
Domain: 89 - Visual Tracking
- Matching and
Pointing/Listener
repertoires

2C 3.3 -Speech -Preschool -Mands/Tacts with

Delay Language Scale-4 autoclitic frames
- Listener/Speaker -Auditory -Following vocal
comprehension:73SS verbal directions
-Expressive - Matching and
communication:72SS Pointing repertoires
-Total Language - Appropriate play
Score: 70SS/2nd%ile skills
 Naming: MEI versus SEI 113

Table 1 continued. ...

3E 4.10 -Pervasive -Vineland Adaptive - Mands/Tacts with
Developmental Behavior Scales: autoclitic frames
Disorder Interview Ed. -Following vocal
-Reader/Emergent -Socialization verbal directions
Writer Domain: 54 -Textual Responding
-Communication first grade level
Domain: 60 -Looking at books
-Adaptive Behavior appropriately
Composite: 54 -Matching and
Pointing repertoires

3C 4.10 -Behavior Disorder -Scores are -Mands/Tacts with

-Speech Delay not available autoclitic frames
- Listener/Speaker -Following vocal
verbal directions
- Appropriate play
skills
-Conversational
units emitted
-Matching and
Pointing repertoires

4E 4.7 - Language and -Vineland Adaptive - Mands/Tacts with

cognitive delays Behavior Scales: autoclitic frames
- Listener/Speaker Interview Ed. - Follows vocal
-Socialization verbal directions
Domain: 96 -Looks at books
-Communication appropriately
Domain: 88 - Matching and
-Adaptive Behavior Pointing repertoires
Composite: 86 -Conversational
units emitted

4C 4.3 - Language and -Vineland Adaptive - Mands/Tacts with

cognitive delays Behavior Scales: autoclitic frames
- Listener/Speaker Interview Ed. - Follows vocal
-Socialization verbal directions
Domain: 88 -Looks at books
-Communication appropriately
Domain: 63 - Matching and
-Daily Living Pointing repertoires
Skills Domain: 75 -Conversational
units emitted

ertoires were also assessed directly and reliably
in the school using The CABAS® International
Curriculum and Inventory of Repertoires For
Children from Pre-School through Kindergarten
(Greer & McCorkle, 2003). This is a criterion
referenced curriculum and repertoire assessment
tool that identifies and assesses the repertoires
needed from preschool through first grade. It
is continuously updated for each child in the
school and closely monitors the children’s levels
114 R. Douglas Greer, Lauren Stolfi, and Nirvana Pistoljevic
Table 2. Description of Sets.
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3
Parrot Diamond Weeping Willow
Canary Sapphire Maple Tree
Ostrich Ruby Evergreen
Cardinal Amethyst Palm Tree
Hummingbird Emerald Dogwood
of achievement. The children’s verbal behavior
achievement levels and standardized measures
are reported in Table 1 and these represent the
children’s achievement levels at the onset of the
experiment that continued across approximately
four months.
Setting and Stimuli
The study was conducted in a publicly
funded private preschool for children with and
without developmental delays. The school em-
ployed a behavior analytic approach to teaching,
curriculum including verbal development, and
behavior management, and was located in a sub-
urban area outside of a large metropolitan city.
Three of the students attended a general educa-
tion class for all or a portion of their day, while
5-students attended self-contained classrooms
for children with speaker/listener repertoires
and early reader/writer repertoires. All of the
long term and short-term educational objectives
for students in the school were based on the CA-
BAS® International Curriculum and Inventory of
Repertoires for Children from Pre-School through
Kindergarten (Greer & McCorkle, 2003) and
New York State K-1 Educational Standards.
Dependent Variable: Pre-Experimental Probes
Pre-experimental probes were done to ensure
that the students could not respond as a listener
or tact pictures of the five categories of stimuli
listed in Table 2. The first target response was
(a) point to responses following vocal instruc-
tions to “point to ___” (listener response) when
the experimenter provided a tact for a picture
and the student had a choice between a picture
corresponding to the experimenter’s tact, the
positive or correct exemplar, and a picture that
did not correspond to the tact, the negative or
not correct exemplar. The second and third
Set 4 Set 5
Sea Horse Radish
Guppy Zucchini
Gold Fish Artichoke
Cat Fish Eggplant
Angel Fish Red Pepper
target behaviors were speaker responses and
consisted of (b) pure tact responses following
the presentation of pictures and (c) multi-
ply-controlled tact responses to the pictures
following the question, “What is this?” After
determining these responses were missing for
the students, we conducted the baseline phase
to test for Naming.
Dependent Variable; Probe Responses for
Naming
In the baseline we set the occasion to test for
the presence or absence of Naming. First we
taught the students to match the target stimuli
in each students first set, while saying the tact
for the stimuli (i.e., “put parrot with parrot”)
until the students met the training criterion us-
ing learn units. This ensured that the student
was matching the stimuli and hearing the tact
for the stimuli and these are the conditions that
allow students with Naming to emit untaught
listener and speaker responses.
Matching Instruction. An accurate match
response consisted of the student placing the
target picture on top of a duplicate picture,
when the target picture and pictures of non-
target or non-exemplar items, that were rotated
across probes, were placed in front of the child
on the table. The rotating negative exemplars
and the positive exemplars were taken from the
same set that was being probed (Table 3). The
experimenter emitted the vocal antecedent,
“Match ____,” followed by the experimenter’s
tact for the target stimulus. For example,
the student was presented with a picture of a
parrot, while a picture of a parrot and a “not
parrot bird” was in view on the table, and the
experimenter provided the vocal antecedent
“Match parrot.” Three different exemplars of
stimuli in the set of 5-stimuli were used such
 Naming: MEI versus SEI
Table 3. Description of the Sets Counterbalanced across Students.
Students First Set Second Set
1E Set 1 Set 2
2E Set 2 Set 3
3E Set 3 Set 5
4E Set 1 Set 4
1C Set 2 Set 1
2C Set 2 Set 1
3C Set 1 Set 4
4C Set 2 Set 4
that abstractions were also taught. Mastery
criterion for matching was set at 90% or better
correct responses across two consecutive ses-
sions or 100% correct responding in a single
session. After the child had mastered the match
responses using learn units (i.e., reinforcement
for correct responses and corrections for incor-
rect responses that were not reinforced) they
then received unconsequated probes for the
listener and speaker responses.
Probes for Untaught Listener and Speaker
Responses. The point to responses (the untaught
listener response) consisted of the student point-
ing to the target picture presented on the table
with a non-exemplar and the antecedent “Point
to___”. For example, the student was present-
ed with the instruction, “Point to diamond,”
while a picture of a diamond and an amethyst
were in view on the table. In the pure tact pre-
sentations there were no vocal antecedents. For
example, the experimenter presented a picture
of a weeping willow tree and the student vocally
responded with “weeping willow” and this con-
stituted a pure tact probe. Multiply-controlled
tacts, the second type of speaker response, were
defined as vocal verbal operants emitted under
the control of both a verbal antecedent (i.e.,
“What is this?”) and the presence of a picture
presented by the teacher. For example, the
student stated the tact “ostrich” following the
presentation of a picture of an ostrich and the
experimenter’s vocal antecedent “What is this?”
During pre-experimental probes and experi-
mental probes done throughout the experiment,
none of the responses were consequated (i.e.,
no reinforcement or corrections were given).
Presentations of previously mastered subject
115
Third Set Fourth Set Fifth Set
Set 4
Set 3
Set 4 Set 3 Set 5
Set 4
Set 3
Set 3 Set 5
matter unrelated to the experimental task were
interspersed throughout the probe sessions
and students received reinforcement for cor-
rect responses in order to maintain attention.
For example, asking the child to tact a color or
textually respond to a printed word that was
in the student’s repertoire, was followed by the
delivery of reinforcement for correct responses
to this already mastered response. The criterion
for the presence of the Naming repertoire was
set at 80% or better across 2 or more of the 3
untaught repertoires (point to, tact, and intra-
verbal tact).
Data Collection
We collected data on (a) the dependent
variables, (b) the fidelity of implementation of
probe procedures (i.e., the absence of reinforce-
ment or corrections by the experimenter), and
the fidelity of learn unit presentations for MEI
instruction (i.e., the presence of accurate rein-
forcement and accurate correction procedures),
and learn units for SEI instruction (i.e., the
presence of reinforcement and accurate cor-
rection procedures). The dependent variables
were listener and speaker probe trial responses
following each participant’s mastery of match-
ing while the participants heard the tact for the
stimulus matched.
As described above, prior to the experiment,
we probed the students to ensure that they could
not respond to the stimuli in the sets accurately
as listeners or speakers as described above (i.e.,
they could not tact or point to the stimuli as
a listener response). For these probe sessions,
data were collected during 60-probe trial ses-
sions (20-trials for point to responses, 20-trials
116 R. Douglas Greer, Lauren Stolfi, and Nirvana Pistoljevic
for tact responses, and 20-trials for impure
tact responses). During the probe sessions,
opportunities to respond were rotated across
point to, pure tact and impure tact responses.
A single probe trial consisted of the presentation
of the antecedent followed by the opportunity
to respond within three seconds; for example,
“Point to the canary,” when a canary and a “not
canary” picture was on the table. No reinforce-
ment for correct responses and no corrections
for incorrect responses were provided during
the probe trials. For the pure tact, a picture
was shown and the child had the opportunity to
tact the picture. For the impure tact probes the
child was asked, “What is this?’ when presented
with a picture.
During the instructions to teach mastery of
the match-to-sample responses while hearing
the tact, we collected data on responses to learn
units until the students mastered the match re-
sponses while hearing the tacts for each students
first set of stimuli according the counterbalance
scheme describe in Table 3. After each child
matched the first set of stimuli (90% accuracy)
as matching responses while hearing the tact for
the stimulus spoken by the experimenter, we
did unconsequated probe trials for the untaught
listener and speaker responses for those same
stimuli. These sessions consisted of 20-probe
trial sessions for each of the three response
types (point to, pure tact, and intraverbal tact
responses) for a total of 60-probe trials. In
these 20-trial probe sessions each stimulus was
presented four times. These latter probes were
again repeated following either the SEI or MEI
interventions with one or more instructional
sets and constituted tests for the emergence of
Naming.
Fidelity of Treatment Data Collection. Dur-
ing multiple exemplar instruction for the experi-
mental group and singular exemplar instruction
for the control group (and also later MEI for
the SEI group), data were collected as responses
to learn unit presentations, again with a plus
for correct responses and a minus for incorrect
responses. In this phase we simultaneously
recorded both the students accuracy and the
experimenter’s accuracy in presenting learn
units. In the case of the experimenter’s accuracy,
the experimenter had to present the anteced-
ent or antecedents to the participant while the
student was attending, provide a 3-second op-
portunity to respond, and provide the accurate
consequation for the participants responses per
the learn unit protocol described above. The
antecedent for the experimenter to present the
antecedent to a student was the student attend-
ing, so presentation of the antecedent by the
experimenter (i.e., “Point to guppy” or “What
fish is this?”) was the experimenter’s response
and an antecedent for the student’s response
(i.e., pointing to a picture of a guppy or saying
“guppy”). The behavior of the student was the
consequence for the experimenter’s behavior and
an antecedent for the experimenter to reinforce
a correct response (“good job, nice sitting” or
deliver a generalized reinforcer). In the case of
an incorrect response, the correction procedure
involved the experimenter presenting the ante-
cedent again and modeling the correct response
(i.e., “Point to canary” and modeling pointing
to the picture of canary for student to imitate),
which was a consequence for the student. The
learn unit was complete only when the student
imitated or echoed the experimenter’s correc-
tion as part of the correction procedure. The
intra-response time, time between the presenta-
tion of the stimulus and student’s opportunity
to respond, was set at three seconds. Therefore,
if the student did not emit the response within
three seconds, the experimenter provided a
correction. We recorded a plus (+) on a data
collection sheet when the student emitted a
correct response to a learn unit, and a minus
(-) was recorded if a student emitted an incor-
rect response or no response. We also recorded
the accuracy of the experimenter in presenting
each of the components of the learn unit—the
experimenter’s antecedent accuracy, intra-re-
sponse accuracy, and consequation accuracy.
A check mark constituted a correct antecedent
and that the student was attending, an encircled
check mark was an incorrect antecedent, a
correct consequence was either an R (correct
reinforcement) or C (correct correction). In
the case of an incorrect consequation the C
or R was encircled. Incorrect intra-response
times, or inaccurate recordings of the student’s
 Naming: MEI versus SEI
Table 4. Example of an MEI Learn Unit Sequence for a Training Set (Learn Unit Presentations
Proceeded from Left to Right in the Following Training Set Example).
First LU Second LU
Match Diamond Point to Safire
Tact Diamond Impure Tact Safire
Point to Diamond Tact Safire
Impure Tact Diamond Point to Ruby
Match Safire Tact Ruby
response resulted in the independent observer
circling the student’s plus or minus (Ingham &
Greer, 1992).
We also recorded the accuracy of probe trial
presentations in a similar manner; however,
probe trials were not to receive reinforcement
or corrections. Thus, we recorded the accuracy
of the antecedent and response opportunities
and the absence or presence of a consequence.
Presenting a consequence for a probe trial
would have been recorded as an error had an
error occurred.
Interobserver Agreement
The experimenters obtained interobserver
agreement for 158 of the 294 total sessions
(54%), with an independent observer. The
interobserver agreement was collected using the
Teacher Performance Rate Accuracy Protocol
(Ingham & Greer, 1992) that simultaneously as-
sessed both the accuracy of the measurement of
the students’ responses and fidelity of treatment
as described above. Across all eight students and
all probes and instructional sessions, the mean
interobserver agreement for the participant’s
responses was 99.8% ranging from 96.7% to
100%. Interobserver agreement for 28 out of
36 experimental probes was collected, yield-
ing a mean of 99.7%, ranging from 96.7% to
100%. During MEI experimental group and
SEI control group yoked instruction, 81 out of
180 sessions were observed by an independent
observer, and the mean interobserver agreement
was of 100%. During the SEI group MEI in-
struction, an independent observer observed 56
out of 86 sessions and the mean interobserver
agreement was 100%. To obtain the percentage
of agreement we divided the total numbers of
point-by-point observer agreements by the total
numbers of agreements plus disagreements, and
117
Third LU Fourth LU
Match Ruby Impure tact Amethyst
Impure Tact Ruby Match Emerald
Tact Amethyst Impure Tact Emerald
Point to Amethyst Tact Emerald
Match Amethyst Point to Emerald
then multiplied that number by 100%. The
accuracy of the experimenter presentation of
learn units and probe trials for all sessions with
independent observers was 100%.
Independent Variable: MEI Instruction and the
Control SEI Condition
The independent variable in the experiment
was multiple exemplar instruction (MEI) for the
experimental group and the control condition
was singular exemplar instruction (SEI) for the
control group. Instructional sessions consisted
of 80-learn units; however, the responses were
blocked for the graphs by response topographies
in 20-learn unit sessions (20-match response,
20-point to responses, 20-pure tact responses,
and 20- impure tact responses as shown in
Figure 5).
MEI Instruction for the Experimental Group.
For the experimental MEI group, listener and
speaker responses were rotated during instruc-
tion, as described in Table 4, until the criterion
of 90% or better correct responses across 2
consecutive 20-learn unit blocked sessions was
achieved for each response topographies (i.e.,
2-sessions consecutive sessions of 20-learn units
for match, 2-consecutive sessions of 20-learn
units point to, 2-consecutive sessions of 20-
learn units pure and impure tacts respectively).
The procedures were consistent with those
used by Fiorile and Greer (2006), Gilic (2005)
Greer, Stolfi et al. (2005), Nirgudkar (2005),
and Greer and Ross (2008), such that match
instruction was alternated with point instruc-
tion, followed by a tact instruction, followed by
an impure or intraverbal tact instruction. The
rotation of the topographies and stimuli were
counterbalanced. This sequence was done such
that the sets of five stimuli for the training sets
were taught in a rotating fashion across all of the
118 R. Douglas Greer, Lauren Stolfi, and Nirvana Pistoljevic
four response topographies, but in a way that a
child could not simply echo the prior responses.
For example, the response for “Point to parrot”
was followed by “Match ostrich,” followed by
a pure tact opportunity for cardinal (no vocal
antecedent, presentation of the picture stimuli
alone), and then followed by a multiply-con-
trolled tact, a vocal antecedent “What is this?”
presented with a picture of canary. In the next
rotation, pictures of birds were presented in a
different response form sequence, such that the
stimuli and response topographies were rotated
until all response topographies were represented
20 times. All the response topographies were ro-
tated until the criterion of 90% or better correct
responses to learn units across two consecutive
sessions was achieved per topography. See table
4 for a description of the sequence. The num-
bers of learn units required to achieve criterion
for each MEI student determined the numbers
of learn units received by each matched SEI pair
in the control group. The rotation across all of
the topographies continued until mastery was
achieved for all topographies per the criterion.
Figure 5 shows when criterion was achieved
for all topographies for a representative pair
of participants; however, even after the topog-
raphy was mastered the other topographies
continued to be rotated until all topographies
were mastered.
SEI Instruction for the Control Group. For
the SEI control group, listener and speaker
responses were not rotated during instruction.
Rather, we taught all topographies separately in
massed 20-learn unit [learn unit] sessions. We
taught match responses in separate sessions,
then point to responses in separate sessions (i.e.,
“Point to the canary”), followed by pure tacts
(i.e., see canary and say canary) and than impure
tacts (i.e., hear, “What is it,” see canary, and
then say, “canary”), each in separate sessions.
The numbers of learn units delivered during
SEI instruction were matched or yoked to the
numbers of learn units received by the MEI stu-
dent in the experimental group matched to the
SEI student. Thus, each matched MEI student
needed to master her set first to determine the
numbers of learn units needed by the matched
SEI student. The SEI participants received the
same numbers of learn units for all topographies
as his or her matched MEI pair had received.
After the completion of the SEI instruction and
the Naming probes for both the SEI and MEI
groups the experimental-control comparison
of the experiment was concluded. However,
when the data showed that Naming was miss-
ing for the SEI group, we taught the SEI group
additional sets of stimuli to criterion, utilizing
MEI, the procedure as outlined for the MEI
experimental group.
Within the experimental group, we also
conducted the MEI intervention using a
time-lagged multiple probe single case design
as shown in Figure 2. After the completion
of the post MEI and SEI interventions that
constituted the experimental control group
comparison, the SEI group received the same
time-lagged multiple probe design for the MEI
interventions, just as had the initial MEI group,
as shown in Figure 4.
We used learn units (Albers & Greer, 1991)
to teach the stimuli both during MEI and SEI.
A description of the learn unit protocol follows.
The experimenter presented an unambiguous
antecedent while the student was attending, the
student was than provided with an opportunity
to respond, followed by the appropriate con-
sequence. Experimentally accurate learn unit
consequences to a correct response consisted
of the immediate presentation of a generalized
reinforcer (i.e., tokens and praise). Accurate
learn unit consequences to incorrect student
responses involved a correction procedure. For
the corrections, the experimenter presented
the correct response, the antecedent again and
the student repeated the accurate response to
the learn unit provided as a correction for the
student’s incorrect or missing response and that
corrected response was not reinforced.
Design
We used a combined experimental-control
group design with a “nested” multiple probe
design across participants to compare the
effect of multiple exemplar instruction and
single exemplar instruction on the emergence
of Naming. The combination of the two de-
signs resulted in controls for maturation and
 Naming: MEI versus SEI
instructional histories both within groups and
between groups. The sequence of the experi-
mental and control group aspect of the design
was as follows: 1) Pre-experimental probes for all
students for point-to, pure tact, and impure tact
responses were conducted for first set of stimuli.
2) Next, we conducted baseline instruction
via learn units for matching for each student’s
first set stimuli to criterion where the student
heard the tacts of target stimuli when presented
with an antecedent (i.e. “Match cardinal”);
3) After the matching criterion was achieved
while hearing the tacts for the stimuli, probes
for untaught responses to the first set stimuli
(i.e., point-to, pure and impure tact responses)
were conducted. 4) Next, we began the MEI
intervention with the experimental group. For
the MEI group, we presented multiple exemplar
instruction, alternating all four responses to
stimuli in second set, the first training set, until
the participants achieved the mastery criterion.
5) Following the achievement of criterion on the
second or first training set, for each of the MEI
participants, we did post instruction probes for
untaught responses to first set stimuli (point to,
pure tacts, and impure tacts). For students in
the experimental group who did not acquire
the Naming repertoire following the mastery
of the first teaching set, another MEI training
set was done.
6) For the control group, we conducted
single exemplar instruction for second set us-
ing massed learn unit session with match only
first, then the point-to, followed by pure tact,
and then impure tact responses respectively.
The numbers of learn units were matched or
yoked between the two groups according to
numbers of learn units the matched student in
the experimental group required for each re-
sponse topography to achieve criteria. 7) Then,
unconsequated probes for untaught responses to
the first set for SEI group were conducted, and
then an another teaching set was taught in the
single exemplar fashion if the MEI matched pair
had required another set too. 8) Next, we con-
ducted a probe again of the untaught responses
to first set with the SEI group to determine if
Naming has emerged. 9) Since the Naming
repertoire did not emerge for any participants
119
in the SEI condition (Figure 3), we conducted
the MEI intervention with SEI, control group
as was done with the experimental MEI group.
The SEI group was taught a fourth set of stimuli
until mastery, alternating listener and speaker
responses in MEI fashion 10) Following the
MEI, we conducted the post instruction probes
for untaught responses for first set of stimuli
(point to, pure tacts, and impure tacts); and
control group students that did not acquire
Naming were taught a fifth set via multiple
exemplar instruction to mastery; 11) Finally,
post instructional probes for untaught first set
responses were conducted again for the group
that initially received the SEI following their
having received MEI.
In summary, the nested multiple probe
design was used in the MEI experimental
group during the experimental and control
group comparison, providing a within group
single case design simultaneously with the
experimental-control group design. Following
the experimental-control group comparison, we
also conducted a single case time-lagged mul-
tiple probe design with the students who had
formerly received SEI instruction (Figure 4).
Results
Table 5 shows that the students did not have
the speaker responses for the stimuli before and
after the mastery of the matching while hearing
the tact. The table also shows that Student 1E
had 15 listener responses and the others ranged
between 6 and 11 correct responses. However,
the listener responses were selection responses
and the students could emit correct responses
for 50% of the trials by chance. Thus, only
Student 1E is the only student who probably
had some degree of listener responding. The
speaker responses were missing for all of the
students.
Figure 1 shows the correct responses for all
of the students in each group out of the total
possible responses. The top panel shows the
pre and post MEI Naming responses for the
experimental group, the second panel shows
the pre and post SEI Naming responses for the
control group. The bottom panel shows the pre
120 R. Douglas Greer, Lauren Stolfi, and Nirvana Pistoljevic

Table 5. Pre-Experimental Probe Responses to Set 1 Pre and Post Match Mastery.
Student Pre-Match Post-Match
Point-to Pure Impure Match LU Point-to Pure Impure
Tacts Tacts to criteria Tacts Tacts
1E 15 0 1 40 12 0 1
2E 9 0 0 40 20 4 1
3E 11 0 0 20 13 2 0
4E 11 0 0 20 6 1 0
1C 7 0 1 20 7 0 0
2C 9 1 0 40 7 0 0
3C 6 0 2 20 11 0 1
4C 10 0 0 60 9 0 0
and post MEI Naming responses for the group Following MEI for a second training set Student
that initially received SEI procedure. The top 1E emitted 58 correct responses to the probes
panel shows that prior to MEI the four students for his first set, while Student 1C emitted 9 cor-
emitted 63 correct Naming responses, out of rect responses to the Naming probes. Prior to
240 opportunities, and 220 correct responses the MEI instruction, Student 2E (MEI) emitted
following MEI. The second panel shows that 25 correct responses to the probe set as shown
the SEI group, that received SEI learn units in Figure 2 and 2C (SEI) emitted 7 correct
matched to their MEI pairs, emitted 35 Naming responses for the same probe set as shown in
responses, out of 240 possible opportunities, Figure 3. After the MEI, Student 2E emitted
prior to the SEI and 56 Naming responses fol- 56 correct responses and Student 2C emitted
lowing the SEI condition. The bottom panel 12 correct responses following equal SEI learn
shows the pre and post MEI Naming responses units. Prior to MEI instruction, Student 3E
for the control group that did not achieve emitted 15 correct responses for the probe set
Naming under the SEI condition. This latter as shown in Figure 2 and Student 3C emitted
group emitted 70 Naming responses prior to 12 correct responses as shown in Figure 3. Fol-
their receiving the MEI and they emitted 208 lowing MEI for training set, Student 3E emitted
Naming responses following receiving MEI. 57 untaught Naming responses, and 3C, who
These data show that the MEI group achieved received equivalent SEI instruction, emitted 21
Naming and the control SEI group did not; but, correct Naming responses. Prior MEI, Student
when the control group subsequently received 4E emitted 7 correct responses to the probe
MEI, Naming emerged. set as shown in Figure 2 and Student 4C, who
Figure 2 shows that prior to the MEI Stu- received the same numbers of learn units via
dent 1E emitted 16 correct responses out of 60 SEI emitted 9 correct responses to the probe
possible Naming responses and Figure 3 shows set as shown in Figure 3. After MEI, Student
that Student 1 C emitted 7 Naming responses. 4E emitted 36 correct responses and Student
Following MEI for an MEI training set, 1E 4C emitted 10 correct responses after receiving
emitted 27 untaught Naming responses to the equivalent SEI for the same training set. Fol-
probe set (Figure 2). Student 1C emitted 10 lowing MEI for a second training set, Student
correct Naming responses for the probe set 4E emitted 47 correct responses and Student 4C
following SEI with the training set (Figure 3). after equivalent SEI learn units emitted 14 cor-
 Naming: MEI versus SEI 121

rect responses. The means for correct responses point, pure, and impure tacts are shown in Table
and standard deviations for each student for the 6. These means and standard deviations show

240
220
200
180
160
pre
Series4
140 post
Series3
120
100
80
60
40
20 MEI Experimental Group
0

240

220

200
Numbers of Correct Responses for the Groups

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40
SEI Control Group
20

0
1 2

SEI post MEI

Instruction

Figure 1. Figure 1 shows the combined correct responses for all of the students in each group out
of the total 240 possible responses. The top panel shows the combined pre and post MEI Naming
responses for the experimental group, the second panel shows the combined pre and post SEI Naming
responses for the control group. The bottom panel shows the combined pre and post MEI Naming
responses for the group that initially received SEI procedure.
122 R. Douglas Greer, Lauren Stolfi, and Nirvana Pistoljevic

that MEI resulted in Naming and SEI did not who received the MEI treatment initially. The
result in Naming. data in the figure show that 2-MEI interven-
Figure 2 shows the multiple probe design tions were required for Student 1E to achieve
detailing the time-lagged component of the de- 80% accuracy or the criterion for Naming. The
sign for each member of the experimental group other three students achieved at least 80% ac-
Baseline-First Set First Set-post Second Set First Set-post Third Set
MEI Instruction MEI Instruction

Student 1E

Point to

Tact

Intraverb
al
Numbers of Correct Responses to the Naming Probe Trials

Student 2E

Student 3E
2222E2E

Student 4E
2222E2E

Figure 2. Figure 2 is the multiple probe design for the experimental group and shows each
participant’s correct responses for the pre and post MEI probes for the experimental group alone that
received the MEI intervention, while the control group received the SEI intervention.
 Naming: MEI versus SEI 123

curacy after a single MEI intervention. Figure
3 shows the SEI individual data before and after
SEI instruction as detailed above.
Figure 4 shows the effect of the MEI inter-
vention on students in the SEI group following
the SEI intervention in which they did not
acquire Naming. In the probe for Naming
prior to the MEI for the SEI group, Students
Baseline-First Set
1C, 2C, 3C, and 4C emitted 12, 11, 27, and
20 correct Naming responses respectively.
Following a single MEI intervention Students
1C, 2C, 3C, and 4C emitted 33, 48, 56, and
54 correct responses respectively. Student 1C
required two MEI interventions. Following the
second MEI intervention with a second MEI
set, she emitted 50 correct responses to Naming
First Set-post Second Set First Set-post Third Set
SEI Instruction SEI Instruction
Student 1C
2222E2E

Point to

Tact

Intraverbal
Numbers of Correct Responses to the Naming Probe Trials

Student 2C
2222E2E

Student 3C

Student 4C
2222E2E

Figure 3. Figure 3 shows each SEI participant’s pre and post correct responses to probes for Naming
for the control group that received matched learn units under SEI conditions.
124 R. Douglas Greer, Lauren Stolfi, and Nirvana Pistoljevic

Table 6. Means (Standard Deviation) Scores for Correct Responses to Naming Probes Pre and Post
Instruction.
Probes MEI Group SEI Group SEI Group (post MEI)
Pre-Instruction Mean (Sd) 5.25 (6.89) 2.92 (4.25) 5.83 (5.38)
Post-Instruction Mean (Sd) 17.58 (1.93) 4.67 (5.63) 17.3 (1.57)

Baseline-First Set First Set-post Fourth Set First Set-post Fifth Set
MEI Instruction MEI Instruction

Student 1C
2222E2E

Tact

Intraverbal

Student 2C
Numbers of Correct Responses to the Naming Probe Trials

2222E2E

Student 3C
2222E2E

Student 4C
2222E2E

Probe Sessions Following Instruction

Figure 4. Figure 4 shows each participant’s pre and post probes MEI instruction for Naming for the
SEI group following their not achieving Naming under SEI conditions shown in Figure 3.
 Naming: MEI versus SEI 125

probes. The MEI instruction resulted in all of group and SEI group during yoked instruction
these students acquiring Naming when they did are shown in Table 6. Students in MEI group
not do so in the SEI intervention. achieved a total of 24 criteria across the four
The total numbers of mastery criteria target topographies, while students in the SEI
achieved during the instruction for both MEI group achieved a total of 13 criteria during the
Second Set MEI Training Third Set MEI Training

20
18
16
14 Match
Series1
12 Point to
Series2
10 Series3
Tact

Intraverbal
Series4
8
6
Numbers of Correct Responses to Learn Units

4 Student 1E
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Second Set SEI Training Third Set SEI Training

20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
Student 1C
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526272829

Sessions
Figure 5. Figure 5 is a line graph of correct responses for MEI instruction for 1E and SEI
instruction for 1C. Only two students are shown due to the extensive numbers of figures required to
show the instruction for all students. These examples are representative of all of the students’ responses
to the SEI and MEI interventions.
126 R. Douglas Greer, Lauren Stolfi, and Nirvana Pistoljevic

Table 7. Numbers of Criteria Achieved during MEI and SEI Instruction.

Response Multiple Exemplar Single Exemplar
Topography Instruction (MEI) Instruction (SEI)
Match 6 5
Point to 6 4
Pure Tacts 6 1
Impure Tacts 6 3
Total Criteria 24 13

yoked instruction. The numbers of correct and
incorrect responses to learn units during both
MEI and SEI instruction for an exemplar pair
of students for all response topographies are
shown in the Figure 6. Because including all
of the graphs would have involved an extensive
number of figures, we presented one pair as
an exemplar. All of the data may be obtained
from the first author. Since the learn units
were yoked between the MEI experimental
and SEI control groups, the numbers of learn
units presented were the same for the matched
pairs (Figure 6).
Interestingly, the experimental group
achieved a higher number of criteria (24 crite-
ria achieved) compared to the SEI group (13
criteria achieved) even though there were no
differences in the amount of, or fidelity of, in-
struction. Thus, not only did Naming emerge
following MEI, but also the students who re-
ceived MEI achieved more instructional criteria
than the students in the SEI group who received
the exact same numbers of learn units.
Discussion
Multiple exemplar instruction with either
one or more sets of MEI training resulted in
emergence of the listener and speaker com-
ponents of Naming that were never directly
taught. None of the students in the SEI control
group, who received the exact same numbers
of learn units as their MEI matches, achieved
Naming. However, the Naming emerged for
the SEI when they subsequently received the
MEI instruction.
These data suggest that the rotation com-
ponent found in MEI instruction was both
sufficient and necessary for the acquisition of
Naming for children lacking Naming. The join-
ing of the responses to single stimuli was made
possible by the rotation of the responses to the
stimuli that was part of the MEI procedure.
Simply observing another individual provide a
novel tact for a novel stimulus resulted in the
emission of all of the Naming responses. Thus,
the MEI rotation appears to provide the group-
ing of responses that constitute the higher order
class referred to as Naming. That is, learning
that listener and speaker responses go together,
so to speak, for a subset of stimuli, results in the
emission of untaught responses that were for-
merly not attainable. Our findings do seem to
suggest that this particular MEI learning history,
at least for students like these, is responsible for
the emergence of responses not directly taught.
This is particularly interesting because the MEI
students emitted the untaught responses with
no additional matching instruction often for
extensive periods of time after the matching
experience. The initial matching instruction
while hearing the tact prior to the MEI was the
only exposure that they received. If the MEI
intervention that we used meets the relational
frame theory requirements for mutual and
combinatorial entailment then it would appear
that Naming is a relational frame. We did not
test for this directly.
We were surprised to find that the MEI stu-
dents achieved more instructional objectives for
the separate criteria than did the SEI students;
this occurred despite the fact that the pairs re-
ceived exactly the same numbers of learn units
(Table 7). One possibility is that the SEI pairs
were not matched adequately and this may be
a weakness of this study. That is, the SEI group
had weaker overall performance on the pre-in-
tervention probes for Naming. We should have
 Naming: MEI versus SEI
matched the individuals in the groups more
closely on the Naming responses following the
initial probes rather than relying on matching
the students by other measures. Alternately,
MEI may be more effective in producing the at-
tainment of instructional objectives. However,
we believe that additional research is needed
before we can say that the MEI was more ef-
fective in teaching the instructional objectives
than SEI.
When children have Naming, hearing some-
one emit a tact for a stimulus while the child
jointly attends to the stimulus that is tacted
results in the “emergence” of the untaught
responses—speaker and listener responses.
In our experiments we arrange to ensure the
attention of the children by having the chil-
dren match the stimulus as the experimenter
tacts the stimulus. Under normal conditions,
children simply observe the stimulus tacted, as
Horne and Lowe (1996) describe, and from
that experience alone they can emit speaker
and listener responses. No learn units (i.e.,
corrections or reinforcements) occur; rather the
observations alone suffice to teach the speaker
and listener operants. In addition, the children
can be directly taught either listener or speaker
responses and the untaught will emerge also
(Horne, Lowe, & Randle, 2004). Observation
of a stimulus and the auditory observation of
the spoken tact result in learning of multiple
responses or the learning of a single response
results in the emission of the untaught (trans-
formation of stimulus function from listener to
speaker or vice versa). The children in this and
other experiments who did not have Naming
acquired it as a function of training subset or
subsets of different stimuli in a rotated mul-
tiple exemplar instruction across listener and
speaker responses. The rotation of observing
(the matching response) while hearing the spo-
ken tact was followed by requirements to emit
listener responses (point), or speaker responses
(pure and multiply controlled tacts). These are
presented in such a way that the child must at-
tend to the stimulus and must emit the different
responses that are removed form the immediate
requirement by one to several prior learn units.
This procedure results in the formation of class
127
joining the speaker and listener responding.
Presenting the same instruction where the sepa-
rate responses are not rotated did not result in
the formation of the class. The rapid rotation of
responses to the same stimulus results in a class
of responding such that the stimulus simply has
more than one response and each response itself
may be a stimulus for responses in the same
class. We suggest that the evidence from this
study provides increased empirical support for
the notion of higher order operants.
We believe that children need certain pre-
requisite repertoires and developmental cusps or
verbal capabilities (Greer & Ross, 2008) before
they can profit from the Naming induction
intervention. In each of the studies on Naming
we have carefully described the characteristics
of the children. We would not expect children
who do not have the relevant prerequisites to
benefit from the intervention. Greer and Ross
(2008) describe the range of prerequisite verbal
developmental capabilities that appear to lead
to the potential to benefit from the Naming
intervention.
Once the Naming relations are established,
it may be necessary to provide continued MEI
instruction across other stimuli and different
categories of stimuli before the Naming rela-
tion is firmly in place. However, whether this
is necessary and to what degree this is neces-
sary remains to be investigated. We do think
at this point in our research that observational
learning, or the learning of new operants from
indirect contact with the contingencies (Greer,
Singer-Dudek, & Gautreaux, 2006), is less dif-
ficult to acquire than Naming at least for some
of the children we have studied. However, we
have found in preliminary research that acquir-
ing observational learning can lead to Naming
for some children. While the two processes
both involve observational learning, they differ
significantly in some regards. In Naming, the
child does not observe reinforcement or cor-
rections received by others, rather they hear a
tact while attending to a stimulus and from that
experience the listener and speaker responses
emerge.
Greer et al. (2006) argued for a re-concep-
tualization of the body of literature referred to
128 R. Douglas Greer, Lauren Stolfi, and Nirvana Pistoljevic
as observational learning. Learning as defined
in that paper consists of the acquisition of oper-
ants and higher order operants as a function of
direct or indirect contact with the contingencies
of instruction. The authors went on to cite
evidence for differences between (a) changes
in performance (the emission of previously
learned operants) that accrue from indirect or
observational contact with the contingencies
of reinforcement and punishment and (b) the
acquisition of new operants and higher order
operants as a function of indirect contact with
or observation of reinforcement and correc-
tions as part of instructional contingencies.
The authors cite data from several experiments
showing that children and adolescents, who
could not learn operants from observation,
could do so following two different but related
interventions. They suggested that the current
evidence shows that the acquisition of the ca-
pability to learn operants from indirect contact
with contingencies is learned. We suggest that
this paper and our prior experiments on Nam-
ing a developmental stage or cusp also indicate
that Naming is also learned. However, Naming
appears to be still another type “observational
learning” in that the child who has Naming (or
one of the many children for whom the Nam-
ing capability has been experimentally induced)
does not experience indirect contact with the
contingencies in the process of acquiring novel
listener and speaker responses. There appears
to be no contact with the contingencies of re-
inforcement or instruction. How does this jibe
with what we know about reinforcement and
the acquisition of new operants?
The current theory concerns the role of the
echoic (Catania, 2004, 2007; Horne & Lowe,
1996; Lowenkron, 1996). That is, the echoic,
with and without the movement of lips or vocal
chords may serve as reinforcement. This may be
similar to the “hearing of the word” as one reads
appears to be the source of reinforcement for the
fluent reader in that the echoic response may
reinforce the acquisition of the novel Naming
responses. The big problem with this explana-
tion is that such echoics are often not directly
observable and we are left with an explanatory
ghost. Lowenkron (1996, 1997) provided the
strongest evidence for this possibility by show-
ing that rehearsed “echoic/imitative signs” led to
speaker and listener responses. We suspect that,
it is a covert echoic that allows this to occur, not
unlike the explanation provided by Lowenkron.
However, in our case it was an echoic not a sign
that was the possible source—in fact children
frequently echoed the response in the listener
responding in the MEI condition in the present
study. In the thousands of observations we have
done of children being taught listener responses,
it is not unusual for children who are learning
a point-to-response or a matching response
initially “echo” the tact as they point or match.
One possible way to empirically test for this
echoic reinforcement role is to identify children
without Naming and then as they begin to echo
tacts for point to or match responding, one
could probe the children again for Naming. If
Naming has emerged, then the echoic correla-
tion would provide some evidence for the role of
the echoic, especially if matched children, who
did not begin to echo, did not have Naming
when probed at a similar point in instruction.
However, this remains to be done.
Another potential source of Naming
involves Pavlovian-like pairing experiences,
which Skinner (1957, p. 227) characterized
as ostensive processes or ostensive learning..
Stemmer also argued that most object tacts
are learned through ostensive processes. This
theory does not compete necessarily with the
notion of the echoic as the reinforcer; rather
it suggest the source for why the echoic ac-
quires a reinforcement function in the situa-
tions that occasion Naming. Skinner (1957)
stated that children learn to become effective
listeners through the conditioning processes.
The Pavlovian conditioning processes gives
the listener the ability to react to the verbal
stimuli with conditioned reflexes (Skinner,
1957). The ostensive learning process involves
a pairing of a vocal stimulus with another
salient stimulus in the presence of the child.
Skinner (1957) described ostensive processes
by stating that individuals learn the tacts for
objects by observing another manipulate the
object while tacting the object. Such pairings
are frequent and sufficient to establish correct
 Naming: MEI versus SEI
listener responses to the vocal stimulus. The
Pavlovian contingencies have two effects. First,
they occasion appropriate non-verbal behavior
in response to similar stimuli, and second they
establish the verbal stimuli as appropriate tacts
(Skinner, 1957; Stemmer, 1973). What’s inter-
esting about this theory is that the pairings are
observed and not directly experienced. This is
clearly an extension of the stimulus-stimulus
pairing; however there is recent evidence of the
effects of observed stimulus-stimulus pairings
on conditioning reinforcers (Greer & Singer-
Dudek, in press).
There are now several published experiments
and several dissertations showing functional
relations between MEI and the emergence of
Naming in typically- developing children or
children with language delays (Fiorile & Greer,
2007; Gilic, 2005; Greer, Stolfi et al., 2005; Nir-
gudkar, 2005). The evidence from the present
experiment adds to this literature and clarifies
the role of the multiple exemplar experience in
the acquisition of the higher order class. Each
set of findings identifies new questions. Is there
a difference between two and three-dimensional
Naming? What are the prerequisite or co-requi-
site experiences that differentiate children who
acquire Naming incidentally and those who
require protocols to induce Naming? Do dif-
ferent categories of stimuli, i.e., tacts or textual
responses, require separate MEI experiences?
Does Naming emerge with MEI for different
topographies of verbal behavior (i.e., sign,
picture, speech)? When a child has Naming,
does that capability provide the prerequisites
for reading comprehension? That is, once the
child has Naming and then acquires textual
phonetic repertoires, does the child then have
comprehension immediately provided they have
the Naming for the stimuli responded to textu-
ally? Does this suggest revisiting the stimulus
equivalence description of reading (Sidman,
1986)? Are there more advanced types of Nam-
ing? For example, do university students who
attend lectures and perform well on examina-
tion items based solely on the lecture material
have an advanced type of Naming? These are
just a few of the question suggested by the ac-
cumulating evidence.
129
There are, of course several limitations to our
study. One limitation could be that we set the
MEI training criterion at only 80% across 2 out
of the 3 untaught repertoires. Perhaps a more
stringent criterion of 100% would have elimi-
nated the necessity for additional sets of MEI.
We also did not test for 3-dimensional Naming.
It is possible and even likely that the children
in this study had 3-dimensional Naming, since
Gilic (2005) found that typically developing
3-year olds had Naming for 3-dimensional
objects. Clearly, tests for the differences in
3-dimensional and 2-dimensional Naming are
needed. Another limitation is that the brunt of
the work on the induction of Naming has come
from one laboratory. On the one hand this
means that the procedures have been reliably
consistent. On the other hand, the methodol-
ogy used throughout the experiments may have
artifacts that contribute to the findings in ways
that we do not presently understand. However,
in the present experiment, we did combine
both single case and group designs to evaluate
the source of the effect, thereby showing that a
different design resulted in a replication of the
effect. Other laboratories need to replicate our
findings. But until this is done, the procedures
described herein represent best practices to use
to induce Naming for children missing Naming
and children who have the repertoires identi-
fied across the several experiments completed
thus far.
In summary, the current evidence suggests
that the rotation component of MEI is both
sufficient and necessary to induce Naming
in children with characteristics like those we
studied. This, in turn, suggests that the MEI
experiences produced a higher order class of
responding. The emerged responses simply
belonged to a new and higher order class of
verbal behavior and the source was a history of
reinforced relations with similar but different
sets of stimuli. Whether or not the higher order
operant is a relational frame would appear to be
resolved by whether or not the MEI procedure
involves the mutual entailment and combinato-
rial entailment requirement for what constitutes
a frame. Regardless, the result is the formation
of a higher order operant—Naming.
130 R. Douglas Greer, Lauren Stolfi, and Nirvana Pistoljevic
References
Albers, A. E., & Greer, R. D. (1991). Is the
three-term contingency trial a predictor of
effective instruction? Journal of Behavioral
Education, 1, 337-354.
Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Cul-
linan, V. (2001). Relational frame theory
and Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. The Behavior
Analyst, 23, 69-84.
Catania, A. C. (1998). Learning 4th ed. Engle-
wood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.
Catania, A. C. (2007). Learning interim 4th ed.
Cornwall-on-Hudson, NY: Sloan Publish-
ing.
Fiorile, C. A., & Greer, R. D. (2007). The
induction of naming in children with no
echoic-to-tact responses as a function of
multiple exemplar instruction. The Analysis
of Verbal Behavior, 23, 71-88.
Folio, M. R., & Fewell, R. R. (2000). Peabody
Developmental Motor Scales (Second ed.).
Austin, TX: Pro-ed, An International Pub-
lisher.
Gilic, L. (2005). Development of Naming in
two-year-old children. (Doctoral disserta-
tion, Columbia University, 2005). Abstract
from: UMI Proquest Digital Dissertations
[on-line]. Dissertations Abstract Item: AAT
3188740.
Greer, R. D., & Keohane, D. D. (2005). The
evolutions of verbal behavior in children.
Behavioral Development Bulletin, 1, 31-47.
Reprinted in 2006 in the Journal of Speech
and Language Pathology: Applied Behavior
Analysis, Volume 1 (2). Retrieved March
2005 from www.behavior-analyst-today.
com
Greer, R. D., & McCorkle, N. P. (2003). CA-
BAS® international curriculum and inventory
of repertoires for kindergarten. Yonkers, NY:
CABAS® and The Fred S. Keller School.
Greer, R.D., Nirgudkar, A., & Park, H. (2003).
The effect of multiple exemplar instruction
on the transformation of mand and tact
functions. Paper presented at the Interna-
tional Conference of the Association for
Behavior Analysis, San Francisco, CA.
Greer, R. D., & Ross, D. E. (2008). Verbal
behavior analysis: Inducing and expanding
complex communication in children with
severe language delays. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Greer, R. D. & Singer-Dudek, J. (in press). The
emergence of conditioned reinforcement
from observation. Journal of the Experimen-
tal Analysis of Behavior.
Greer, R. D., Singer-Dudek, J., & Gautreaux,
G. (2006). Observational learning. In-
ternational Journal of Psychology, 41 (6),
486-489.
Greer, R. D., Stolfi, L., Chavez-Brown, M., &
Rivera-Valdez, C. (2005). The emergence of
the listener to speaker component of Nam-
ing in children as a function of multiple
exemplar instruction. The Analysis of Verbal
Behavior, 21, 123-134.
Hayes, S., Barnes-Homes, D., & Roche, B.
(2001). Relational frame theory: A Post Skin-
nerian of human language and cognition. New
York: Kluwer/Academic Plenum.
Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1996). On the
origins of Naming and other symbolic be-
havior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis
of Behavior, 65, 185-241.
Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1997). Toward
a theory of verbal behavior. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 271-
296.
Horne, P. J., Lowe, C. F., & Randle (2004).
Naming and categorization in young chil-
dren: II. Listener behavior training. Journal
of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 70,
87-102.
Ingham, P., & Greer, R. D. (1992). Changes in
student and teacher responses in observed
and generalized settings as function of su-
pervisor observations of teachers. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 153-164.
Lodhi, S., & Greer, R. D. (1989). The speaker
as listener. Journal of the Experimental Analy-
sis of Behavior, 51, 353-360.
Lowe, C. F., & Horne, P. J. (1996). Reflections
on Naming and other symbolic behavior.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of be-
havior, 65, 315-340.
Lowe, C. F., Horne, P. J., Harris, F. D. A., &
Randle, V. R. L. (2002). Naming and the
 Naming: MEI versus SEI
categorization in young children: Vocal tact
training. Journal of the Experimental Analysis
of Behavior, 78, 527-549.
Lowe, C. F., Horne, P. J., & Hughes, C. (2005).
Naming and categorization in young chil-
dren III: Vocal tact training and transfer
of function. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of behavior, 83, 42-55.
Lowenkron, B. (1984). Coding responses and
the generalization of matching-to-sample in
children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis
of behavior, 42, 1-18.
Lowenkron, B. (1988). Generalization of
delayed identity matching in retarded chil-
dren. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
behavior, 50, 163-172.
Lowenkron, B. (1989). Instructional control of
generalized relational matching to sample in
children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis
of behavior, 52, 293-309.
Lowenkron, B. (1991). Joint control and the
generalization of selection-based verbal
behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior,
9, 121-126.
Lowenkron, B. (1996). Joint control and
word-object bi-directionality. Journal of
the Experimental Analysis of behavior, 65,
252-255.
Lowenkron, B. (1997). The role of Naming in
the development of joint control. Journal
of the Experimental Analysis of behavior, 68,
244-247.
Lowenkron, B., & Colvin, V. (1992). Joint
control and generalized identity nonidentity
matching: Saying when something is not.
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 10-, 1-10.
Lowenkron, B., & Colvin, V. (1995). Gen-
eralized instructional control and the
production of broadly applicable relational
responding. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior,
12, 13-29.
Nirgudkar, A. S. (2005). The relative effects of
the acquisition of Naming and the multiple
exemplar establishing operation experience
on the acquisition of the transformation of
establishing operations across mands and
tacts. (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia Uni-
versity, 2005). Abstract from: UMI Proquest
Digital Dissertations [on-line]. Dissertations
View publication stats
131
Abstracts Item: AAT 3159751.
Ross, D. E., & Greer, R. D. (2003). General-
ized imitation and the mand: Inducing first
instances of speech in young children with
autism. Research in Developmental Disabili-
ties, 24, 58-74.
Ross, D. E., Nuzzolo, R., Stolfi, L., & Natarelli,
S. (2006). Effects of speaker immersion on
independent speaker behavior of preschool
children with verbal delays. Journal of Early
and Intensive Behavior Interventions, 3.1,
135-150. Retrieved February 22 from
http://www.behavior-analyst-online.org
Sidman, M. (1986). Functional analysis of
emergent classes. In T. Thompson & M.
Zeiler (Eds.), Analysis and integration of
behavioral units (pp. 213-245). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. Acton,
MA; Copley Publishing Group.
Stemmer, N. (1973). Language acquisition and
classical conditioning. Language and Speech,
16, 279-282.
Tsiouri, I., & Greer, R. D. (2003). Inducing
vocal verbal behavior through rapid motor
imitation training in young children with
language delays. Journal of Behavioral Edu-
cation, 12, 185-206.
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale (Classroom
Edition). (1984). Circle Pines, MN: Ameri-
can Guidance Service.
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale (Interview Edi-
tion). (1984). Circle Pines, MN: American
Guidance Service.
Williams, G., & Greer, R. D. (1993). A com-
parison of verbal-behavior and linguistic
communication curricula for training de-
velopmentally delayed adolescents to acquire
and maintain vocal speech. Behaviorology,
1, 31-46.
Zimmerman, I. L., Steiner, V. G., & Pond, R.
G. (2002). Preschool Language Scale (4th ed.).
San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corpo-
ration; A Harcourt Assessment Company.