An explicit technology of generalization.

The publication of the now classic article on generalization, An Implicit Technology of Generalization (Stokes & Baer, 1977), spurred interest generalization as an active process rather than a passive process consisting primarily of a failure discriminate between training and nontraining settings. Following their description of nine areas which the extant behavioral research addressed generalization issues, a new interest generalization of behavior change was home. More than a decade later, their description of categories of techniques that purportedly could be used produce generalization was refined An Operant Pursuit of Generalization (Stokes & Osnes, 1989). Stokes and Osnes described 12 general ization-promoting strategies that were classified within three broader areas. Their description assisted the field continuing focus interest on the fundamental need for the results of behavioral interventions generalize effectively and be durable and for behavioral research actively address generalization. Now, more than a decade following the publication of An Operant Pursuit of Generalization and a quarter century after An Implicit Technology of Generalization was published, the time has arrived address the status of generalization-promotion by behavior analysts, both their conceptual and empirical investigations. ********** The publication of An Implicit Technology of Generalization (Stokes & Baer, 1977) resulted a groundswell of interest generalization as an active process that is important for behavior analysts pursue directly validate the effectiveness of behavioral programming. This classic article embedded behavior analysis the realization that our work is functional not only when it produces immediate effects the immediate environment that is targeted for change, but more importantly, when the effects are more widespread. Baer, Wolf, and Risley (1968) included generality of behavior change as one of the seven dimensions of applied behavior analysis, and concluded that, in general, generalization should be programmed, rather than expected or lamented (p 97). Their description of generality is consistent with the description provided by Stokes and Baer: A therapeutic behavioral change, be effective, often (not always) must occur over time, persons, and settings, and the effects of the change sometimes should spread a variety of related behaviors (p. 350). While acknowledging that their conceptualization of generalization was not consistent necessarily with the traditional understanding and descriptions of the phenomenon, they proceeded provide a description of generalization as ... the occurrence of relevant behavior under different, non-training conditions (i.e., across subjects, settings, people, behaviors, and/or time) without the scheduling of the same events those conditions as had been scheduled the training conditions,, (Stokes & Baer, p. 350). This description appeared resonate positively within the behavior analytic community, as evidenced by the embracing of the nine categories of generalization outlined the article: train and hope; sequential modification; introduce natural maintaining contingencies; train sufficient exemplars; train loosely; use indiscriminable contingencies; program common stimuli; mediate generalization; train to generalize. Importantly, not only did the article provide a rubric by which behavior analysts could organize their efforts achieve broad and durable behavior change, it provided the first exhaustive review of the behavioral literature regards the process of generalization. Although it was a critically-acclaimed seminal effort organize behavior analysis around a conceptualization of generalization, the interest that was piqued following the publication of the article focused primarily on researchers beginning note whether or not the effects of their work occurred generalized circumstances. …