Instructions for assignement:

1- Read attched article 

2- after reading create 2 questions that you might still have regarding the reading. something you dont understand about the article. they must be 2 questions. also answer them. 200-300 words total

Please use the vocabulary and terms in the article to ask the questions and that the questions are related the articles

JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR

THE DEVELOPMENT OF IMITATION BY REINFORCING
BEHAVIORAL SIMILARITY TO A MODEL1

DONALD M. BAER,2,3 ROBERT F. PETERSON, AND JAMES A. SHERMAN3

UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS,
AND UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS

This research demonstrated some of the conditions under which retarded children can be
taught to imitate the actions of adults. Before the experiment, the subjects were without
spontaneous imitative behavior, either vocal or motor. Each subject was taught, with food
as reinforcement, a series of responses identical to responses demonstrated by an experimenter;
i.e., each response was reinforced only if it was identical to a prior demonstration by an
experimenter. Initially, intensive shaping was required to establish matching responses by
the subjects. In the course of acquiring a variety of such responses, the subjects’ probability
of immediate imitation of each new demonstration, before direct training, greatly increased.
Later in the study, certain new imitations, even though perfect, were never reinforced;
yet as long as some imitative responses were reinforced, all remained at high strength. This
imitativeness was then used to establish initial verbal repertoires in two subjects.

CONTENTS

Method
Subjects
First training procedures
Further training procedures

Probes for imitation
Non-reinforcement of all imitation
Imitative chains
Verbal imitations
Generalization to other experimenters

Results
Reliability of scoring imitative responses
First training procedures
DRO procedures
Imitative chains
Verbal behavior
Generalization to other experimenters

Discussion
The development of a class of behaviors

which may fairly be called “imitation” is an
interesting task, partly because of its relevance
to the process of socialization in general and
language development in particular, and
partly because of its potential value as a trai

n-

ing technique for children who require special
methods of instruction. Imitation is not a spe-
cific set of behaviors that can be exhaustively
listed. Any behavior may be considered imit

a-

tive if it temporally follows behavior demon-
strated by someone else, called a model, and if

its topography is functionally controlled by
the topography of the model’s behavior. Spe-
cifically, this control is such that an observer
will note a close similarity between the topog-
raphy of the model’s behavior and that of the
imitator. Furthermore, this similarity to the
model’s behavior will be characteristic of the
imitator in responding to a wide variety of
the model’s behaviors. Such control could re-
sult, for example, if topographical similarity
to a model’s behavior were a reinforcing stim-
ulus dimension for the imitator.
There are, of course, other conditions which

can produce similar behaviors from two orga-
nisms on the same occasion, or on similar occa-
sions at different times. One possibility is that

1A portion of this research was presented at the
biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child
Development, Minneapolis, Minnesota, March, 1965.
This research was supported by PHS grant MH-

0

2208,
National Institute of Mental Health, entitled An
Experimental Analysis of Social Motivation. Mr. Frank
Junkin, Superintendent, Dr. Ralph Hayden, Medical
Director, and other members of the staff of the Fir-
crest School, Seattle, Washington, made space and
subjects available. We wish to thank Mrs. Joan Beavers
for her help as a “new” experimenter in the tests
of generalization and for assistance in the preparation
of this manuscript.

2Reprints may be obtained from Donald M. Baer,
Department of Human Development, University of
Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66044.
3Research Associates, Bureau of Child Research,

University of Kansas.
405

1967, 10, 405-416 NUMBER 5 (SEPTEMBER)

DONALD M. BAER, et al.

both organisms independently have been
taught the same responses to the same cues;
thus, all children recite the multiplication ta-
bles in very similar ways. This similarity does
not deserve the label imitation, and hardly
ever receives it; one child’s recitation is not
usually a cue to another’s, and the similarity
of their behavior is not usually a reinforcer
for the children. Nevertheless, the children of
this example have similar behaviors.
The fact that the world teaches many chil-

dren similar lessons can lead to an arrange-
ment of their behaviors which comes closer to
a useful meaning of imitation. Two children
may both have learned similar responses; one
child, however, may respond at appropriate
times whereas the other does not. In that case,
the undiscriminating child may learn to use
this response when the discriminating one
does. The term imitation still need not be ap-
plied, since the similarity between the two
children’s responses is not functional for either
of them; in particular, the second child is not
affected by the fact that his behavior is similar
to that of the first. This arrangement ap-
proaches one which Miller and Dollard (1941)
call “matched-dependent” behavior. One or-
ganism responds to the behavior of another
merely as a discriminative stimulus with re-
spect to the timing of his own behavior; many
times, these behaviors will happen to be alike,
because both organisms will typically use the
most efficient response, given enough experi-
ence.

It should be possible, however, to arrange
the behavior of two organisms so that one of
them will, in a variety of ways, produce precise
topographical similarity to the other, but
nothing else. A study by Baer and Sherman
(1964) seemingly showed the result of such
prior learning in several young children. In
that study, reinforcements were arranged for
children’s imitations of three activities of an
animated, talking puppet, which served both
as a model and a source of social reinforce-
ment for imitating. As a result of this rein-
forcement, a fourth response of the puppet
was spontaneously imitated by the children,
although that imitation had never before been
reinforced. When reinforcement of the other
three imitations was discontinued, the fourth,
never-reinforced imitation also decreased in
strength; when reinforcement of the original
imitations was resumed, imitation of the

fourth response again rose in rate, although it
still was never reinforced. In short, these chil-
dren apparently generalized along a stimulus
dimension of similarity between their behav-
iors and the behaviors of a model: when simi-
larity to the model in three different ways was
reinforced, they thereupon displayed a fourth
way of achieving similarity to the model.
Thus, similarity between their behavior and
the model’s was a functional stimulus in their
behavior.
Metz (1965) demonstrated the development

of some imitative behavior in two autistic chil-
dren who initially showed little or no imita-
tive response. In this study, responses similar
in topography to demonstrations by the ex-
perimenter were reinforced with “Good” and
food. Metz found that, after intensive training,
several imitative responses could be main-
tained in strength even when not reinforced
with food, and that the subjects had a higher
probability of imitating new responses after
training than before. However, in one of the
conditions used to evaluate the subjects’ imi-
tative repertoire before and after imitative
training, “Good” was still said contingent
upon correct new imitations. Thus, for one
subject who initially showed a non-zero rate
of imitation, it could be argued that the in-
creased imitation in the test after training was
due to an experimentally developed reinforc-
ing property of “Good”, rather than to the
imitation training as such. Further, in the
Metz study, due to a lack of extinction or
other manipulation of the behavior, it is dif-
ficult to specify that the higher probability of
imitating new responses, and the maintenance
of unreinforced imitative responses, were in
fact due to the reinforcement of the initial
imitative responses during training.

Lovaas, Berberich, Perloff, and Schaeffer
(1966) used shaping and fading procedures to
establish imitative speech in two autistic chil-
dren. They reported that as training progressed
and more vocal behavior came under the con-
trol of a model’s prior vocalization, it became
progressively easier to obtain new imitative
vocalizations. When reinforcement was shifted
from an imitative-contingent schedule to

a

basically non-contingent schedule, imitative
behavior deteriorated. In an additional ma-
nipulation, the model presented Norwegian
words interspersed with English words for the
children to imitate. Initially, the children did

406

THE DEVELOPMENT OF IMITATION

not reproduce the Norwegian words perfectly.
However, the authors judged that the subjects
gradually improved their imitations of the
Norwegian words even though these imitations
were not reinforced.
The studies by Baer and Sherman (1964),

Metz (1965), Lovaas et al (1966), and other re-
ports (Bandura, 1962) suggest that for children
with truly imitative repertoires, induction has
occurred, such that (1) relatively novel behav-
iors can be developed before direct shaping,
merely by providing an appropriate demon-
stration by a model, and (2) some imitative
responses can be maintained, although unrein-
forced, as long as other imitative responses are
reinforced.
The purpose of the present study was to ex-

tend the generality of the above findings and
to demonstrate a method of producing a truly
imitative repertoire in children initially lack-
ing one.

METHOD

Subjects
Three children, 9 to 12 years of age, were

selected from several groups of severely and
profoundly retarded children in a state school.
They were chosen not because they were re-
tarded, but because they seemed to be the only
children available of a practical age who ap-
parently showed no imitation whatsoever.
(The success of the method to be described
suggests that it may have considerable practi-
cal value for the training of such children.)
The subjects were without language, but made
occasional grunting vocalizations, and re-
sponded to a few simple verbal commands
(“Come here”, “Sit down”, etc.). They were
ambulatory (but typically had developed walk-
ing behavior relatively late in their develop-
ment, in the sixth or seventh year), could dress
themselves, were reasonably well toilet trained,
and could feed themselves. Fair eye-hand coor-
dination was evident, and simple manipula-
tory skills were present.
The subjects were chosen from groups of

children initially observed in their wards from
a distance over a period of several days. No
instances of possible imitation were noted in
the subjects finally selected. (That is, on no
occasion did any subject display behavior sim-
ilar to that of another person, except in in-
stances where a common stimulus appeared to

be controlling the behaviors of both persons,
e.g., both going to the dining area when food
was displayed on the table.) Subsequently, an
experimenter approached and engaged the
subjects in extended play. In the course of this
play, he would repeatedly ask them to imitate
some simple response that he demonstrated,
such as clapping his hands, or waving.

The

children failed to imitate any of these re-
sponses, although they clearly were capable of
at least some of them. Finally, during the
training itself, every sample of behavior was
initially presented to the child as a demon-
stration accompanied by the command, “Do
this”; at first, none of these samples was imi-
tated, despite extensive repetition.

First Training Procedures
Each subject was seen at mealtimes, once or

twice a day, three to five times a week. The
subject’s food was used as a reinforcer. It was
delivered a spoonful at a time by the experi-
menter, who always said “Good” just before
putting the spoon into the subject’s mouth.
The subject and experimenter faced each
other across the corner of a small table, on
which were placed the food tray and the ex-
perimenter’s records. Elsewhere in the room
was another small table on which were placed
some materials used later in the study, a desk
with a telephone on it, a coat rack holding one
or more coats, a wastebasket, and a few other
chairs.
The basic procedure was to teach each sub-

ject a series of discriminated operants. Each
discriminated operant consisted of three ele-
ments: a discriminative stimulus (SD) pre-
sented by the experimenter, a correct response
by the subject, and reinforcement after a cor-
rect response. The SD was the experimenter’s
command, “Do this”, followed by his demon-
stration of some behavior. The response re-
quired was one similar to the experimenter’s.
Thus, the operant learned was always topo-
graphically imitative of the experimenter’s
demonstration. The reinforcement was food,
preceded by the word “Good”.

Since none of the subjects was imitative,
none of the initial SD’s was followed by any
behavior which resembled that demonstrated
by the experimenter. This was true even for
those behaviors which the subjects were clearly
capable of performing. Subject 1, for example,
would sit down when told to, but did not imi-

407

DONALD M. BAER, et al.

tate the experimenter when he said “Do this”,
sat down, and then offered her the chair.
Hence, the initial imitative training for all
subjects was accomplished with a combination
of shaping (Skinner, 1953) and fading (Ter-
race, 1963a, 1963b) or “putting through” pro-
cedures (Konorski and Miller, 1937).
The first response of the program for Sub-

ject 1 was to raise an arm after the experi-
menter had raised his. The subject was
presented with a series of arm-raising demon-
strations by the experimenter, each accompa-
nied by “Do this”, to which she made no re-
sponse. The experimenter then repeated the
demonstration, reached out, took the subject’s
hand and raised it for her, and then immedi-
ately reinforced her response. After several
trials of this sort, the experimenter began
gradually to fade out his assistance by raising
the subject’s arm only part way and shaping
the completion of the response. Gradually, the
experimenter’s assistance was faded until the
subject made an unassisted arm-raising re-
sponse whenever the experimenter raised his
arm. The initial responses for all subjects were
taught in this manner whenever necessary.

Occasionally during the very early training
periods a subject would resist being guided
through a response. For example, with a re-
sponse involving arm raising, Subject 3 at first
pulled his arm downward whenever the ex-
perimenter attempted to raise it. In this case,
the experimenter merely waited and tried
again until the arm could be at least partially
raised without gteat resistance; then the re-
sponse was reinforced. After subjects had re-
ceived a few reinforcements following the
experimenter’s assistance in performing a re-
sponse, they no longer resisted. As the number
of responses in the subjects’ repertoire in-
creased, the experimenter discontinued the
guiding procedure and relied only on shaping
procedures when a response did not match the
demonstration.
A number of responses, each topographi-

cally -similar to a demonstration by the experi-
menter, was taught to each subject. Training
of most responses was continued until its dem-
onstration was reliably matched by the subject.
The purpose of these initial training proce-
dures was to program reinforcement, in as
many and diverse ways as practical, whenever
a subject’s behavior was topographicallyf simi-
lar to that demonstrated by the experimenter.

Further Training Procedures
Probes for imitation. As the initial training

procedures progressed, and the subjects began
to come under the control of the experiment-
er’s demonstrations, certain responses were
demonstrated which, if imitated perfectly on
their first presentation, were deliberately not
reinforced on the first or any future occasion.
These responses served as probes for the devel-
oping imitative nature of the subject’s reper-
toire. A list of the responses demonstrated, in-
cluding the reinforced ones for the initial
training procedure and the unreinforced
probe demonstrations, is given in Table 1 for
Subject 1. These responses are listed in the
order of first demonstration. Subject 1 had 95
reinforced and 35 unreinforced responses. Sim-
ilar responses were used with Subjects 2 and 3.
Subject 2 had 125 reinforced and five unrein-
forced probes; Subject 3 had eight reinforced
responses and one unreinforced probe.
During the probes, the experimenter con-

tinued to present SD’s for imitation. If the re-
sponse demonstrated belonged to the group of
reinforced responses and the subject imitated
within 10 sec, reinforcement (“Good” and
food) was delivered and the next response was
demonstrated. If the subject did not imitate
within 10 sec, no reinforcement was delivered
and the experimenter demonstrated the next
response. If it belonged to the unreinforced
group of responses (probes), and if the subject
imitated it, there were no programmed conse-
quences and the experimenter demonstrated
the next response no sooner than 10 sec after
the subject’s imitation. If it was not imitated,
the experimenter performed the next demon-
stration 10 sec later. The purpose of the 10-sec
delay was to minimize the possibility that the
subjects’ unreinforced imitations were being
maintained by the possible reinforcing effects
of the presentation of an SD for a to-be-rein-
forced imitative response. Demonstrations for
reinforced and unreinforced responses were
presented to subjects in any unsystematic
order.
Non-reinforcement of all imitation. After

the probe phase, and after stable performances
of reinforced and unreinforced imitative re-
sponses were established, non-reinforcement of
all imitative behavior was programmed. The
purpose of this procedure was to show the de-
pendence of the imitative repertoire on the

408

Table 1
The Sequence of Responses Demonstrated to Subject 1

(Asterisks indicate unreinforced responses.)
1. Raise left arm. 66. Throw box
2. Tap table with left hand *67. Walk to telephone
3. Tap chest with left hand *68. Extend both arms (sitting)
4. Tap head with left hand 69. Walk and tap head with left hand
5. Tap left knee with left hand 70. Walk and tap head with right hand
6. Tap right knee with left hand *71. Walk and clap hands
7. Tap nose *72. Open mouth

*8. Tap arm of chair 73. Jump
9. Tap leg of table 74. Pat radiator
10. Tap leg with left hand *75. Nod no
11. Extend left arm 76. Pick up phone
12. Make circular motion with arm 77. Pull drawer
13. Stand up 78. Pet coat
14. Both hands on ears 79. Tear kleenex
15. Flex arm 80. Nest four boxes
16. Nod yes 81. Point gun and say “Bang”
17. Tap chair seat *82. Put towel over face
18. Extend both arms *83. Put hands over eyes
19. Put feet on chair *84. Tap floor
20. Walk around *85. Scribble
21. Make vocal response *86. Move toy car on table
22. Extend right arm sideways 87. Place circle in form board
23. Tap shoulder 88. Place circle, square, and triangle in form board
24. Tap head with right hand *89. Crawl under table
25. Tap right knee with right hand *90. Walk and clap sides
26. Tap leg with right hand *91. Lie on floor
27. Tap left knee with right hand *92. Kick box
28. Raise right arm overhead *93. Put foot over table rung
29. Tap chest with right hand *94. Fly airplane
30. Tap table with right hand *95. Rock doll
31. Move chair *96. Burp doll
32. Sit in chair *97. Tap chair with bat
33. Throw paper in basket *98. Open and close book
34. Pull up socks 99. Work egg beater
35. Tap desk 100. Put arm through hoop
36. Climb on chair 101. Build three block tower
37. Open door *102. Stab self wth rubber knife
38. Move ash tray 103. Put blocks in ring
39. Put paper in chair 104. Walk and hold book on head
40. Sit in two chairs (chained) 105. Ride kiddie car
41. Tap chair with right hand 106. Sweep with broom
42. Move paper from basket to desk 107. Place beads around neck
43. Move box from shelf to desk 108. Ride hobby horse
44. Put on hat *109. Put on glove
45. Move hat from table to desk 110. Use whisk broom on table
46. Move box from shelf to desk 111. Work rolling pin
47. Nest three boxes *112. Push large car
48. Put hat in chair 113. Put beads on doorknob
49. Tap wall *114. Put hat on hobby horse
50. Move waste basket 115. Sweep block with broom
51. Move paper from desk to table 116. Place box inside ring of beads
52. Stand in corner 117. Put glove in pocket of lab coat
53. Pull window shade 118. Push button on tape recorder
54. Place box in chair *119. Bang spoon on desk
55. Walk around desk 120. Lift cup
56. Smile 121. Use whisk broom on a wall
57. Protrude tongue *122. Put a cube in a cup
58. Put head on desk 123. Rattle a spoon in a cup
59. Ring bell *124. Throw paper on the floor
60. Nest two boxes *125. Hug a pillo

w

61. Crawl on floor 126. Tap pegs into pegboard with hammer
*62. Walk with arms above head *127. Wave a piece of paper
63. Sit on floor *128. Shake a rattle
64. Put arm behind back (standing) *129. Hit two spoons together
65. Walk with right arm held up 130. Shake a tambourine

409

DONALD M. BAER, et al.

food reinforcement which was apparently re-
sponsible for its development.

Non-reinforcement of imitation was insti-
tuted in the form of reinforcement for any be-
havior other than imitation. Differential rein-
forcement of other behavior is abbreviated
DRO (Reynolds, 1961). The experimenter con-
tinued saying “Good” and feeding the subject,
but not contingent on imitations. Instead, the
experimenter delivered reinforcement at least
20 sec after the subject’s last imitation had
taken place. Thus, for the group of previously
reinforced responses, the only change between
reinforcement and non-reinforcement periods
was a shift in the contingency. For the group
of unreinforced or probe responses there was
no change; food reinforcement still did not
follow either the occurrence or non-occurrence
of an imitative response. This procedure in-
volved simultaneously the extinction of imi-
tation and also the reinforcement of whatever
other responses may have been taking place
at the moment of reinforcement.

For Subject 1, the DRO period was 30 sec.
For Subject 2, DRO periods were 30, 60, and
0 sec’ (DRO Q-sec meant reinforcement was de-
livrered immediately after the SD, before an
imitative response could occur.) This sequence
of DRO intervals was used because, as dis-
played in the- Results section, Subject 2 main-
tained stable imitation under the initial

DRO

procedures, unlike the other subjects. For Sub-
ject 3, the DRO period was 20 sec. After the
DRQ procedure for each subject, contingent
reinforcement of imitation was resumed and
the procedures described below were insti-
tuted.

Imitative chains. After reinforcement for
imitative behavior was resumed with Subjects
1 and 2, the procedure of chaining together
old and new imitations was begun. At first
only two-response chains were demonstrated;
then three-response chains, after two-response
chains were successfully achieved; and so on.
During chaining, the experimenter demon-
strated the responses the subject was to imi-
tate as an unbroken series. In all cases, the
demonstrated chain contained both responses
previously learned by the subject and rela-
tively new ones. Walking from one locale to
another in the process of performing these be-
‘haviors was not considered part of the imita-
tive chain and was not judged for imitative
accuracy.

Verbal imitations. Late in the training pro-
gram for Subjects 1 and 3, when virtually anyA
new motor performance by the experimenter
was almost certain to be imitated, vocal per-
formances were begun with simple sounds.
The experimenter, as usual, said “Do this”,
but instead of making some motor response
made a vocal one, for example, “Ah”. Sub-
jects I and 3 repeatedly failed to imitate such
demonstrations. Different procedures were
then employed to obtain vocal imitations. For
Subject 1, the vocal response to be imitated
was set into a chain of non-vocal responses.
For example, the experimenter would say,.
“Do this”, rise from his chair and walk to the
center of the room, turn towards the subject,
say “Ah”, and return to his seat. To such a
demonstration Subject 1 responded by leav-
ing her seat, walking toward the center of the
room, turning toward the experimenter, and
then beginning a series of facial and vocal re-
sponses out of which eventually emerged an
“Ah” sufficiently similar to the experimenter’s
to merit reinforcement. This coupling of
motor and vocal performances was maintained
for several more demonstrations, during which
the motor performance was made successively
shorter and more economical of motion; fin-
ally, the experimenter was able to remain
seated, say “Do this”, say “Ah”, and immedi-
ately evoke an imitation from the subject.
Proceeding in this manner, simple sounds were
shaped and then combined into longer or
more complex sounds and finally into usable
words.

Subject 3, like Subject 1, initially failed to
imitate vocalizations. In his case, the experi-
menter proceeded to demonstrate a set of
motor performances which moved successively
closer to vocalizations. At first the experi-
menter obtained imitative blowing out of a
lighted match, then blowing without the
match, then more vigorous blowing which
included an initial plosive “p”, then added a
voiced component to the blowing which was
shaped into a “Pah” sound. Proceeding in this
manner, a number of vocalizations were pro-
duced, all as reliable imitations.

Generalization to other experimenters.
When the imitative repertoire of Subject 1
had developed to a high level, new experi-
menters were presented to her, of the opposite
or the same sex as the original male experi-
menter. These novel experimenters gave the

410

THE DEVELOPMENT OF IMITATION

same demonstrations as the original experi-
menter in the immediately preceding session.
The purpose of this procedure was to investi-
gate whether the subject’s imitative repertoire
was limited to demonstrations by the original
male experimenter. During this procedure,
the new experimenters delivered reinforce-
ment in the same manner as the original ex-
perimenter; i.e., previously reinforced imita-
tions were reinforced and probes were not.

RESULTS

Reliability of Scoring Imitative Responses
Checks on the reliability of the experiment-

er’s scoring of any response as imitative were
made at scattered points throughout the study
for Subjects 1 and 2. The percentage of agree-
ment between the experimenter’s scoring and
the independent records of a second observer
exceeded 98%.

First Training Procedures
The initial training procedure contained

occasions when the extent of the developing
imitative repertoire of each subject could be
seen. These were occasions when behavior was
demonstrated by the experimenter to the
subject for the first time. Any attempt by the
subject to imitate such new behavior before
direct training or shaping could be attributed
to the history of reinforcement for matching
other behavior of the experimenter. Thus, it
was possible to examine the sequence of initial
presentations to each subject to discover any
increasing probability that new behavior
would be imitated on its first presentation.
The sequence of 130 responses in Subject 1’s

program was sufficient to increase her proba-
bility of imitating new responses from zero at
the beginning of the program to 100% at the
end. This was demonstrated by grouping the
130 responses into 13 successive blocks of 1

0

each. As shown in Fig. 1, the proportion imi-
tated on the first presentation within each
block rose, not too steadily, but nonetheless
clearly, to 100% by the 13th block.
The proportion of new responses success-

fully imitated by Subject 2 upon their first
presentation rose from 0% to 80%, through
a sequence of 130 new responses, as shown in
Fig. 2.

Subject 2 displayed both more variable and
less thorough imitation of new responses on

BLOCKS OF

10 NEW RESPONSES

Fig. 1. The development of imitation in Subject 1.

their first presentation than did Subject 1, al-
though the general form of the data is similar.

Subject 3 was taught only eight discrimi-
nated operants of imitative topography, which
he acquired much more rapidly than did
either Subject 1 or 2. He imitated the ninth
spontaneously on its first presentation, al-
though he had not imitated it before training.
The progressive development of imitation

was apparent in other aspects of the data as
well. The number of training sessions required
to establish new imitations was displayed by
plotting this number of sessions for each suc-
cessive block of 10 new responses. The cri-
terion for establishment of a new imitative
response was that, for one trial, a subject dis-
played the response demonstrated by the ex-
perimenter with no shaping or fading pro-
cedures require(l for that trial. This is shown
in Fig. 3 for Subject 1 and in Fig. 4 for Sub-
ject 2, as solid lines. Both graphs show a syste-
matically decreasing number of sessions re-
quire(l to establish successive new imitations.
The dotted portions of each graph represent
deviations from the usual type of training

0 _

SUBJECT #2

w

0e
0

0 ~ ~ ~~1 NE-EPNE

Fizg

z ~
0t

IL
I

BLOCKS OF
10 NEW RESPONSES

Fig. 2. The development of imitation in Subject 2.

‘”I
SUBJECT #1

‘U
U)

z

o 2
w0
IA 0 ‘

U Z

z ae w
O0 0

S.- U
z I.-

U ce

‘U 9
0.

411

DONALD M. BAER, et al.

procedure and thus are plotted differently.
For Subject 1 the dotted portion represents a
period in which verbal responses were intro-
duced (not plotted as part of Fig. 3, but dis-
cussed later in this report). For Subject 2 the
dotted portion represents a sequence of ses-
sions in which few new imitative responses
were introduced. Rather, two previously es-
tablished imitative responses of similar to-

pography, which the subject no longer clearly
displayed, were worked on intensively.

DRO Procedures
For all subjects, both reinforced and unrein-

forced imitative behavior was maintained over
continuing experimental sessions as long as
food reinforcement was contingent upon at

2 3 4 S a to a

BLOCKS OF

10 NEW RESPONSES
rate of development of imitation in

a

g 0 U2

cs F- zA ‘

0

0i *- W.
LUi Z

4

Fig. 4. TI
Subject 2.

SUBJECT #2

2 3 4a3 a

BLOCKS OF
10 NEW RESPONSES

he rate of development of imitation in

:7

SUBJECT # I
100 nVW

0@

.
6*

SO

50~~~~~~

REINFORCED MIT.

UNREINFORCED IMIT.

0
0

0V
0

0

1oo 105

SESSIONS
Fig. 5. The maintenance and extinction of reinforced and unreinforced imitation in Subject 1. (The breaks

in the data before and after session 160 represent periods of experimentation aimed at other problems.)

412

4
n-
n-
The
a

hi U)
at

0
z

0°

4c

Z) a

U) U0 3

Fig. 3.
Subject 1.

(I)

z
0

—
C’)

z ow

Z
Ld
0

.z

w
w
0

THE DEVELOPMENT OF IMITATION

least some imitative behavior. When reinforce-
ment was no longer contingent upon imitative
behavior during the DRO periods, both the
previously reinforced imitations and the never-
reinforced probe imitations decreased mark-
edly in strength.

Figure 5 is a plot of the percentages of each
type of imitative response by Subject 1. It
shows that her probability of imitating the 35
probes varied between 80 and 100%, as long
as the other 95 imitations, within which the
probes were interspersed, were reinforced. The
application of the DRO 30-sec procedure ex-
tinguished virtually all imitative behavior
within about 20 hr. The previously reinforced
imitations and the probe imitations extin-
guished alike in rate and degree. All imitative
behavior recovered when, with a small amount
of shaping, reinforcement was again made con-
tingent upon imitative behavior.

Figure 6 is a similar plot of the imitative be-
havior of Subject 3. It shows the maintenance
of the one probe imitation and eight rein-
forced imitations during reinforcement of imi-

tation, a marked decrease in both types of
imitative behavior during the DRO 20-sec
period, and a recovery when contingent rein-
forcement of imitations was resumed.

Figure 7 is a plot of the imitative behavior
of Subject 2. Her results were similar to those
obtained for Subjects 1 and 3, in terms of the
maintenance of 125 reinforced and five probe
imitations, under conditions of reinforcement
of imitations. However, her data depart from
the others’ during the DRO period. Initially,
this subject showed no reliable signs of ex-
tinction after four sessions of DRO with a 30-
sec delay. Next, DRO 60-sec was instituted for
four sessions, still without any reliable effect.
At that point, a procedure of DRO 0-sec was
begun, meaning that the experimenter demon-
strated some behavior, and instantly, before
the subject could respond, said “Good” and
delivered the food to her mouth. Thus, rein-
forcement served to forestall the durable imi-
tative responses this subject was displaying.
Figure 7 demonstrates the immediacy of effect
of this procedure. After four sessions of DRO

100 – SUBJECT #3

REINFORCED IMIT.
*0O000 UNREINFORCED IMIT.

r I I I I I I I I

‘ 15 20

0
0

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

0
0

0′ 00

I ItI If I
25 30

— DRO

SESSIONS
Fig. 6. The maintenance and extinction of reinfoyced and unreinforced imitation in Subject 3.

cn)
z
0

C/)
z
0

w
z
w

CL

w
a-
a

LLJ

0

35
FX–|* E E * * * E * * * * . . – *E*-m-* s

F,

,

I I . I I IFA

413

F,

DONALD M. BAER, et al.

100

SO
0
SUBJECT #2

– NREINFORCED IMIT.
*—-0 UNREINFORCED IMIT.

105 110 115

30″

DRO

SESSIONS
Fig. 7. The maintenance and extinction of reinforced and unreinforced imitation in Subject 2.

0-sec, it was possible to resume the procedures
of DRO 30-sec and produce only a brief and
partial recovery of the rate of imitation, which
then declined to zero. A return to contingent
reinforcement, with a small amount of shap-
ing, quickly reinstated the high rate of imita-
tion previously displayed.

In all cases, then, it is clear that the imita-
tive repertoire depended on reinforcement of
at least some of its members. It is noteworthy
that those responses which had developed and
been maintained previously without direct re-
inforcement could not survive extinction ap-
plied to the entire class of behaviors.

Imitative Chains
Subjects 1 and 2 were exposed to the pro-

cedure of chaining together old and new imi-
tative responses. At the end of 10 hr of the
procedure for Subject 1, lengthy chains con-
taining already established and new imitative
responses became practical. It was possible to
obtain perfect imitation on 90% of the chains,

some of which involved as many as five re-
sponses. Subject 2 received only 2 hr of train-
ing on chains. At the end of this time, she
would imitate 50% of the three-response
chains demonstrated to her, and 80% of the
two-response chains.

Verbal Behavior
Subjects 1 and 3 were used in the procedures

for the development of verbal imitation.
Verbal imitations were established for Sub-
ject 1 by chaining together motor and vocal
behaviors and then fading out the motor com-
ponents. Twenty hours of training resulted in
10 words which were reliably imitated such as,
“Hi”, “Okay”, the subject’s name, and the
names of some objects. Subject 3’s training in
vocal imitations was accomplished by evoking
a set of motor imitations which moved suc-
cessively closer to vocalizations. Approximately
10 hr of training produced the reliable imita-
tive vocalizations of seven vowel and conso-
nant sounds.

CO
z
0
–

CY

zw
0-

IJ

z
w

w

ri:
I

00
0

S0
0S

0
0
0
0
S

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
0S
0
0

125

414

THE DEVELOPMENT OF IMITATION

Generalization to Other Experimenters
When Subject 1 was presented with new

experimenters, of both the opposite and same
sex as the original male experimenter, she
showed approximately the same degree of
imitation displayed to the original experi-
menter. That is, she imitated all of the three
probe demonstrations given by one new male
experimenter and imitated 12 of 15 reinforced
demonstrations by a second new male experi-
mented on the first demonstration and the
remaining three by the third demonstration.
On another occasion, the second new male ex-
perimenter re-presented the 15 demonstra-
tions; all were imitated on their first demon-
stration. The subject also imitated all of a
series of demonstrations by a female experi-
menter.

DISCUSSION
The procedures of this study were sufficient

to produce highly developed imitation in the
experimental subjects. However, a noteworthy
point is the relative difficulty experienced in
obtaining initial matching responses from a
subject even when the response required (e.g.,
arm raising) clearly was in the subject’s cur-
rent repertoire. This suggests that the subjects
were not so much learning specific responses
as learning the instruction, “Do as the experi-
menter does.” Initially, then, the procedures
of this study seem to have involved bringing
a number of the subjects’ responses under the
instructional control of the experimenter’s
demonstration.4 To establish this type of in-
structional control by demonstration requires
that the subjects either have or develop re-
sponses of observing their own behavior as
well as the experimenter’s behavior.
As an increasing number of the subjects’ be-

haviors came under the instructional control
of demonstration, additional behavior, not pre-
viously observed in the subjects’ repertoires,
became increasingly probable, merely as a re-
sult of presenting an appropriate demonstra-
tion by a model. In the terminology suggested
by Miller and Dollard (1941), a sufficiently
extensive arrangement of one child’s behavior
into matched-dependent response with a

‘The authors are indebted to Israel Goldiamond
for his suggestions in clarifying this point.

model’s behavior was sufficient to induce a
tendency to achieve similarity in more ways
than were originally taught.
The development of imitative repertoires,

including the unreinforced imitation of probe
demonstrations, could be accounted for by the
effects of conditioned reinforcement. Condi-
tioned reinforcement may have operated in
the present study in the following way: the
basic procedure was that of teaching the sub-
ject a series of responses, each of which was
topographically similar to a demonstration
just given by a model. Initially, each response
had to be established separately. When estab-
lished, such responses were imitative only
topographically and would better be called
matched-dependent behavior; the fact that a
subject’s response was similar to the experi-
menter’s behavior at that point had no func-
tional significance for any of the subject’s
other responses. Nevertheless, topographical
similarity between child and experimenter was
there to be attended to by the child, and this
similarity was potentially discriminative with
respect to the only reinforcement delivered in
the experimental situation. One of the most
effective ways of giving a stimulus a reinforc-
ing function is to make it discriminative with
respect to reinforcement. In these applications,
the stimulus class of behavioral similarity was,
in numerous examples, made discriminative
with respect to positive reinforcement. Hence,
similarity could be expected to take on a posi-
tive reinforcing function as well as a discrimi-
native function. As a positive reinforcer, it
should strengthen any new behavior that pro-
duced or achieved it. Behaviors that achieve
similarity between one’s self and a model are,
of course, imitative behaviors; furthermore,
they are imitative by function and not by coin-
cidence.
This analysis is simple only at first inspec-

tion. In particular, it should be noted that
“similarity” is not a simple stimulus dimen-
sion, like the frequency of sound or the in-
tensity of light. Similarity must mean a corre-
spondence of some sort between the stimulus
output of the child’s behavior and the stimu-
lus output of the model’s. A correspondence
between two stimuli is not too esoteric a stim-
ulus to consider as functional in controlling
behavior. However, for an imitative repertoire
to develop, a class of correspondences must be-
come- functional as stimuli, The child must

4}5

416 DONALD M. BAER, et al.

learn to discriminate a correspondence be-
tween the appearance of his hand and the
model’s hand, his arm and the model’s arm,
his leg and the model’s leg, his voice and the
model’s voice, etc. It would seem reasonable
that each of these kinds of difference must re-
quire some prior experience on the child’s part
to appreciate. A scantiness of such experience
may well be characteristic of retarded chil-
dren, and makes them intriguing subjects for
such studies. The ability to generalize simi-
larities among a considerable variety of stim-
uli, which the children of these studies evi-
denced, suggests that the training they were
subjected to was adequate to the problem. An
immediate next problem, it would seem, is
the detailed analysis *of those procedures to
find out which of them accomplished what
part of this generalization. That analysis
might yield a fair understanding of imitative
behavior.

REFERENCES
Baer, D. M. and Sherman, J. A. Reinforcement con-

trol of generalized imitation in young children.
J. exp. Child Psychol., 1964, 1, 37-49.

Bandura, A. Social learning through imitation. In
M. R. Jones (Ed.) Nebraska symposium on motiva-
tion. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1962,
Pp. 211-269.

Konorski, J. and Miller, S. On two types of con-
ditioned reflex. J. gen. Psychol., 1937, 16, 264-272.

Lovaas, 0. I., -Berberich, J. P., Perloff, B. F., and
Schaeffer, B. Acquisition of imitative speech by
schizophrenic children. Science, 1966, 151, 705-707.

Metz, J. R. Conditioning generalized imitation in
autistic children. J. exp. Child Psychol., 1965, 2,
389-399.

Miller, N. E. and Dollard, J. Social learning and imi-
tation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941.

Reynolds, G. S. Behavioral contrast. J. exp. Anal.
Behav., 1961, 4, 57-71.

Skinner, B. F. Science and human behavior. New
York: Macmillan, 1953.

Terrace, H. S. Discrimination learning with and
without “errors”. J. exp. Anal. Behav., 1963, 6,
1-27. (a)

Terrace, H. S. Errorless transfer of a discrimination
across two continua. J. exp. Anal. Behav., 1963,
6, 223-232. (b)

Received 28 October 1965