JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2008, 41, 377–391 NUMBER 3 (FALL 2008)

TEACHING CHILDREN WITH AUTISM TO RESPOND TO AND

INITIATE BIDS FOR JOINT ATTENTION
BRIDGET A. TAYLOR AND HANNAH HOCH
ALPINE LEARNING GROUP

A multiple baseline design across 3 children with autism was used to assess the effects of
prompting and social reinforcement to teach participants to respond to an adult’s bid for joint
attention and to initiate bids for joint attention. Participants were taught to respond to an adult’s
bid for joint attention by looking in the direction of an object at which the adult pointed, by
making a comment about the object, and by looking back at the adult. Additional training and
reinforcement were needed to teach the participants to initiate bids for joint attention. Findings
are discussed in terms of the social relevance of teaching children with autism to respond to and
initiate bids for joint attention.
DESCRIPTORS: autism, joint attention, social skills, teaching language
________________________________________

Joint attention is recognized as one of the Several studies have shown that children with
earliest forms of communication in young autism display deficits in joint attention skills
children and involves the coordinated attention (Charman, 1998; Jones & Carr, 2004; Mac-
between a social partner and an object or event Donald et al., 2006; Mundy, 1995; Mundy &
in the environment (Bruner, 1975; Mundy, Crowson, 1997). For example, MacDonald et
Sigman, & Kasari, 1994). Researchers have al. observed that children with autism were
distinguished two forms of joint attention: (a) more likely to respond to bids for joint
responses to another person’s bid for joint attention than to initiate bids for joint attention
attention and (b) initiations for joint attention compared to their typically developing peers.
(Jones & Carr, 2004; Mundy & Willoughby, Indeed, the absence of joint attention before 1
1996). Bakeman and Adamson (1984) note that year of age is one of the earliest symptoms and
children typically develop nonverbal joint indicators of autism (Baron-Cohen, Allen, &
attention between 9 and 18 months of age. Gillberg, 1992).
The earliest topography of joint attention In the developmental literature it is hypoth-
involves coordinated gaze shift between an esized that a child initiates bids for joint
object or event in the environment and a attention to attract the adult’s attention to meet
familiar person (Tomasello, 1995). Late in the a social goal of sharing information or an
first year of life, typically developing infants experience rather than to obtain access to a
begin to respond to adults’ bids for joint desired item (Schertz & Odom, 2004). The
attention and to initiate joint attention in emergence of joint attention is described as a
response to an interesting object or event pivotal point in a child’s social and communi-
(Butterworth, 1995). cative development, because it signals the
development of processes that provide a
Special thanks to Erica, Cooper, James, and their foundation for language development and social
parents for participation in this study. Thank you also to competence (Bakeman & Adamson, 1984;
the Alpine Learning Group teachers who assisted with data
collection. Bruner, 1975; Vaughan et al., 2003).
Address correspondence regarding this manuscript to From a behavior-analytic perspective, re-
Bridget A. Taylor, Alpine Learning Group, 777 Paramus sponses to bids for joint attention (e.g., looking
Road, Paramus, New Jersey 07652 (e-mail: btaylor@
alpinelearninggroup.org). at an item that an adult is referencing) fall
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2008.41-377 under discriminative control of the adult’s

377
378 BRIDGET A. TAYLOR and HANNAH HOCH

mand for the child’s attention and are likely is established and maintained by environmental
maintained by generalized reinforcers (e.g., events and social contingencies, and that
social attention; Dube, MacDonald, Mansfield, behavior analysts can manipulate those events
Holcomb, & Ahearn, 2004). The child’s and contingencies to promote joint attention in
initiations of bids for joint attention are more children with autism. A noteworthy study by
properly viewed as mands for the adult’s attention Whalen and Schreibman (2003) used vocal,
directed toward the item or event. The appear- gestural, and physical prompts to teach 5
ance of a noteworthy item or event in the children with autism to follow an adult’s point
presence of an adult may serve as a motivating and gaze to an object in the room. The authors
operation (MO), momentarily establishing the also taught the children to look up from a toy
reinforcing value of the adult’s attention. they were playing with to the adult and to point
One form of adult attention is adult to a novel toy. The experimenter provided
attending stimuli, defined as ‘‘visual indicators reinforcement in the form of access to the toy
that the adult is aware of and attending to the when the child responded correctly. Kasari,
item or event of interest’’ (Dube et al., 2004, Freeman, and Paparella (2006) used various
p. 199), such as the adult’s eyes being open and prompting and reinforcement procedures to
oriented toward the stimulus. The child’s gaze teach 20 young children with autism to engage
shift between the item or event and the adult in joint attention responses (i.e., following an
may be maintained by these adult attending adult’s point to look at an item) and initiations
stimuli. These stimuli (i.e., the adult’s attention (i.e., coordinated eye contact between the adult
to the item or event) may serve as both (a) and items, showing or giving the item to an
conditioned reinforcers due to their previous adult, or pointing to an item). Results showed
association both with the adult’s reaction to that children with autism who received training
items or events and with overall increased with these procedures showed overall increases
reinforcement and (b) discriminative stimuli in joint attention responses and initiations
for other adult-mediated contingencies (e.g., the compared to a control group that did not
adult’s continued attention to the item or event receive training.
or participation in the event). Even though these studies show that joint
There may be three possible reinforcers attention responses can be facilitated using
related to adult-mediated consequences and prompting and reinforcement (Dube et al.,
thus three separate operant classes of initiations 2004), research has not yet documented that
for joint attention (Dube et al., 2004). One is social contingencies alone (e.g., adult attending
positive reinforcement in the form of partici- stimuli and social interaction) can function as
pation in the event or engagement with the item reinforcement for joint attention responses in
(e.g., a child’s mother might smile and interact children with autism. In addition, the effects of
with the child in the presence of a new toy). A teaching responses to bids for joint attention on
second possibility is positive reinforcement in the subsequent emergence of initiations for
the form of helping to maximize reinforcement joint attention have not been examined. Finally,
(e.g., helping the child to manipulate a new the topographies of joint attention responses
toy). The third possibility is negative reinforce- documented in the literature have been limited
ment in the form of alleviating fear or distress to eye contact and gestures, but gaze shifting,
about the item or event (e.g., assuring the child vocal comments, and vocal initiations have not
that a large dog will not cause harm). been targeted.
Several emerging studies offer tentative The purpose of the current study was to
support for the hypothesis that joint attention examine the effects of prompting procedures
 TEACHING JOINT ATTENTION SKILLS 379

and social (rather than tangible) reinforcement Materials

contingencies to teach children with autism to The materials used in this study were (a) toys
engage in three components of joint attention: that were novel or potentially visually enticing
to shift their gaze between an object and an (e.g., the participants had no prior exposure to
adult’s eyes, to vocally respond to bids for joint or experience with the item, or the item’s
attention, and to initiate vocal bids for joint attributes were enhanced or unusual in some
attention. way, such as an oversized balloon) or (b) toys
that the participants had seen before but were
METHOD now arranged in some unusual way so as to be
potentially enticing. More specifically, the items
Participants and Setting were changed in some way from their usual
Three young children with autism partici- appearance (e.g., a toy horse wearing a clown
pated. Erica, 8 years old, had been receiving wig) or placed in an unusual position or
intensive behavioral intervention since the age location (e.g., an umbrella hanging from the
of 3 years. She spoke in five- to six-word ceiling, bicycle turned upside down, basketball
sentences, primarily to mand for tangible items on a kitchen counter). The stimulus materials
or actions. She was able to engage in scripted included items such as scary masks, a large
conversations of up to six exchanges with stuffed snake, and a Chia pet. The items as well
adults, but she rarely initiated novel comments. as their locations were changed regularly to
Cooper, 5 years old, had been receiving promote novelty and to prevent loss of interest
intensive behavioral intervention since the age in the items.
of 2 years. He used vocal verbal behavior to
mand for tangible items and actions and could Data Collection and Measurement
tact attributes, verbs, and prepositions. James, There were four dependent variables: (a) the
3 years old, had been receiving intensive percentage of trials in which the participant
behavioral intervention since the age of 2 looked at the target item in response to the
years. He spoke in three- to five-word instructor’s point (defined as the child having
sentences and could mand for tangible items his or her head facing the item and having both
and actions and tact attributes and verbs. All of eyes directed toward the item within 5 s), (b)
the participants displayed characteristic lan- the percentage of trials in which the participant
guage and socialization deficits associated with commented appropriately about the target item
autism (e.g., difficulties in comprehending (defined as a contextually relevant verbalization
multistep directions, limited use of vocal verbal about, the object, such as ‘‘it’s big’’ or ‘‘it’s
behavior for a variety of purposes, and upside down’’), (c) the percentage of trials in
avoidance of social interaction with peers). which the participant looked back at the
The participants had not been observed to instructor within 5 s after looking at the item
initiate bids for joint attention and inconsis- and making the comment (defined as the child
tently responded to an adult’s bid for joint having both eyes directed toward the instruc-
attention. tor’s face), and (d) the number of bids for joint
All 3 participants attended a behaviorally attention initiated by the child (defined as a
based school program for children with autism. declarative statement prompting the adult to
Sessions were conducted in a room in the school orient toward an item in the environment that
equipped with a table and chairs. Novel setting the instructor determined to be novel or
probes were conducted in various locations in unusual). The child had to (a) point toward
and around the school (e.g., office, kitchen, the item, (b) make a directive statement (e.g.,
gym, playground). ‘‘look’’ or ‘‘wow’’), and (c) make a comment
380 BRIDGET A. TAYLOR and HANNAH HOCH

about the item (e.g., ‘‘it’s a mess’’) to be scored not occurred. Interobserver agreement was
a bid. All four dependent variables were calculated by dividing the number of agree-
measured only during probe sessions (not ments by the number of agreements plus
during teaching sessions). The observer did disagreements and converting this ratio to a
not score (a) repetitions of bids, (b) bids percentage. The total mean agreement for all
initiated toward items that the instructor participants was 98% (range, 90% to 100%).
determined were not novel or arranged in some Mean agreement was 99% for Erica and Cooper
atypical manner (e.g., book on a bookshelf), and 97% for James.
and (c) bids referencing items that the instruc-
tor had referenced already. The number of Procedure
opportunities to respond to a bid by the adult Baseline and probe sessions. One of the authors
differed across sessions, depending on how served as the instructor in all sessions and
many bids the child initiated. conducted no more than one baseline or probe
session per day. During each baseline and probe
Independent Variables session, the instructor baited the environment
The observer scored the following variables to with putative visually enticing or unusually
assess integrity of the implementation of the placed items as described above. A leisure
intervention: (a) presentation of the verbal activity (e.g., book, puzzle) was available on
directive assigned to each target item (e.g., the table. The instructor brought the participant
saying ‘‘wow’’ in reference to an oversized into the room, and the instructor waited 1 min
balloon) to the participant, (b) presence of the for the participant to initiate a bid for joint
target items (e.g., stuffed alligator), (c) instruc- attention. If the participant initiated a bid for
tor’s response to the child’s comment, and (d) joint attention, the instructor responded with
correct use of prompting strategies (i.e., follow- an appropriate social comment (e.g., ‘‘some-
ing the least-to-most prompting hierarchy as body made a big mess!’’). If the participant
described below). Data were expressed as the initiated a bid toward an item that was not
percentage of trials on which the instructor novel or arranged in some atypical manner (e.g.,
implemented all components of the interven- book on a shelf), the instructor did not respond.
tion accurately. Procedural integrity data were After 1 min in which the participant did not
collected for at least 35% of sessions with each initiate a bid or made fewer than the potential
participant and was 100% for all scored total number of bids, the instructor asked the
sessions. participant to sit down at the table and join her
in playing with the activity. After they were
Experimental Design and Interobserver Agreement seated and had engaged with the activity, the
We used a multiple baseline across partici- instructor pointed to one of the target items and
pants design to evaluate the effects of the initiated a bid for joint attention approximately
intervention on responses to and initiations of once every 30 s. The instructor initiated bids
bids for joint attention. An independent about only those items that the participant had
observer collected interobserver agreement data not referenced. For example, if the participant
on all dependent variables during 40% of had initiated bids about four items, the
sessions. An agreement was defined as both instructor only initiated bids about the remain-
observers recording the occurrence or nonoc- ing two items. There were a total of six possible
currence of each response listed above. A bids, consisting of the following statements: (a)
disagreement was defined as one observer ‘‘wow!’’ (e.g., in reference to an oversized
scoring a response as having occurred and the balloon), (b) ‘‘look!’’ (e.g., in reference to a
other observer scoring the response as having doll hanging from the ceiling), (c) ‘‘that’s silly’’
 TEACHING JOINT ATTENTION SKILLS 381

(e.g., in reference to a stuffed animal wearing a the participant to look at the instructor by
wig), (d) ‘‘uh oh!’’ (e.g., in reference to a spilled moving her finger in an exaggerated fashion
liquid), (e) ‘‘aaaah!’’ (e.g., in reference to a scary from the item up to her eyes. If the participant
mask), and (f) ‘‘oh, no!’’ (e.g., in reference to a still did not look at the instructor, the instructor
bike turned upside down). These statements provided the verbal prompt, ‘‘Look at the
were associated with a variety of objects (e.g., [item], then look back at me.’’ When the
‘‘uh oh!’’ could refer to a spilled liquid or a participant looked back at the instructor, the
ripped piece of paper). If the participant made a instructor responded to the participant’s com-
comment in response to the instructor’s bid, the ment with an appropriate social interaction in
instructor responded with an appropriate social an enthusiastic manner (e.g., smiled and said,
response (e.g., smiled and enthusiastically said, ‘‘Yeah, the doll is hanging upside down, that’s
‘‘Yes, that is a big balloon!’’). If the participant so silly!’’) and physical social interaction (e.g.,
initiated a bid about an item about which the tickles).
adult had already made a bid, the instructor An example of a typical training trial was as
responded with an appropriate social response follows: The instructor pointed to the item
(but this was not scored as a bid). The (e.g., a doll hanging from the ceiling) and made
instructor did not provide additional prompts a bid for joint attention (e.g., said, ‘‘look!’’). She
or reinforcement during these sessions. then used exaggerated gestures (e.g., pointed
Training on responding to bids. During the from the participant’s eyes toward the item) to
training sessions, the instructor and the partic- prompt the participant to orient toward the
ipant were seated at the table. The instructor item. After the participant looked at the item,
initiated a bid for joint attention (e.g., pointed the instructor modeled a comment for the
at an item and said, ‘‘wow!’’) and then used participant to imitate (e.g., ‘‘the doll is hanging
least-to-most prompting to prompt the partic- upside down’’) and then provided a gestural
ipant to look in the direction of the point, to prompt for the participant to look back at her.
make a comment about the item, and to look The instructor then provided social reinforce-
back at the instructor. If the participant did not ment (e.g., she said, ‘‘that’s so silly!’’ and tickled
respond to the bid within 5 s, the instructor the participant).
first provided a gestural prompt (i.e., pointed in Training on initiating bids. Specific training
an exaggerated manner from the participant’s procedures were used to teach the participants
visual orientation to the item). If the participant to initiate bids for joint attention toward target
still did not look in the direction of the item items because Erica never initiated a bid and
within 2 s, the instructor physically guided the Cooper and James never initiated more than
participant to turn his or her head toward the two bids during the probe sessions (even after
item (e.g., the instructor lightly touched the we conducted training on responses to bids).
participant’s cheek to turn his or her head in the During this condition, the instructor conducted
direction of the item). When the participant a probe session immediately prior to each
looked in the direction of the item, the training session. A prompt delay procedure
instructor provided an echoic prompt of a was used with all 3 participants. During these
comment (e.g., a vocal model of the comment training sessions, the instructor walked the
for the participant to imitate). All participants participant within approximately 50 cm of a
imitated the vocal model on 100% of trials. target item and waited 5 s to determine whether
After making the comment, if the participant the participant would initiate a bid. If the
did not independently look back at the participant did not make a bid within the 5-s
instructor within 2 s, the instructor prompted interval, the instructor prompted the participant
382 BRIDGET A. TAYLOR and HANNAH HOCH

using most-to-least physical and gestural said, ‘‘Hey, look at that!’’), the instructor
prompts to point to the item and provided an responded with an appropriate social comment
echoic prompt to make a comment about the (e.g., smiled and enthusiastically said, ‘‘Wow,
item. For example, the instructor escorted the that doll looks funny up there!’’) and prompted
participant to an item and stood in front of it. If her to make a check in the box on the index
the participant did not initiate a bid within 5 s, card. Erica was given access to the preferred
the instructor guided the participant’s hand to item after all boxes had been checked. Over
point to the item, provided an echoic prompt of subsequent sessions, the instructor faded
a bid (e.g., ‘‘say, ‘look!’’’), and prompted the prompts using a most-to-least prompting
participant to look back at her. The instructor hierarchy until Erica used the check-off system
provided social comments and physical social independently. For example, the instructor
interaction following each prompted response. initially used hand-over-hand physical prompts
We increased the time between approaching the for Erica to check off boxes on the index card.
item and providing the prompt in 2-s incre- The instructor then used gestural prompts until
ments over successive trials. Thus, following finally all prompts were faded. Sessions eventu-
two prompted or independent responses, the ally were conducted without the index card and
instructor approached the item with the without the instruction, ‘‘Talk about what you
participant and waited 7 s for the participant see.’’
to initiate a bid (i.e., the 5-s delay plus the 2-s Novel setting and stimuli probes. We conduct-
delay increment). The final delay was no more ed pre- and posttest probe sessions in and
than 13 s for any participant. If any of the around the school building to assess generaliza-
participants initiated a bid toward an item that tion to novel or unusually placed items in
would not ordinarily occasion a bid (e.g., a nontraining environments. We conducted one
book on a shelf as opposed to a doll hanging pretest probe (i.e., prior to the implementation
from the ceiling), the instructor said, ‘‘We see of training for all responses) and one posttest
books all the time, it’s not necessary to talk probe (i.e., following implementation of train-
about books,’’ and, if needed, directed the ing for all responses) with each participant.
participant to an item that should occasion a During these probes, the instructor placed items
bid. in locations throughout the school (e.g.,
Checklist for initiating bids. Erica did not hallway, gym, office) and outside (e.g., play-
respond to the prompt delay after 3 days of ground). For example, the instructor hung an
training. Therefore, we introduced an index umbrella upside down on the basketball hoop
card that contained textual prompts and boxes in the gym. Baseline procedures were in place
to check off. We chose this procedure because during these probe sessions except that we
Erica had a history of using similar stimuli to instituted a 30-s delayed prompt (the instructor
learn various responses. Prior to each session, paused in front of the target items and waited
the instructor said, ‘‘Erica, talk about what you 30 s to determine if the participant would
see, check off the boxes, and then you can have initiate a bid in the presence of novel or
[a preferred item].’’ The instructor then gave unusually placed stimuli). The instructor used
Erica a pen and the index card that read ‘‘Talk an interval of 30 s to increase the likelihood
about what you see’’ and contained six boxes to that the participant would orient to and notice
check off. During the training sessions, the the item in a more distracting environment
instructor walked into the room with Erica. If (e.g., a gym with many distracting toys). The
Erica noticed an item and initiated a bid (e.g., instructor pointed to the item and initiated a
pointed to a doll hanging from the ceiling and bid (e.g., said ‘‘look!’’) if the participant did not
 TEACHING JOINT ATTENTION SKILLS 383

initiate a bid within 30 s. The instructor lowed by some variability, but remained above
responded with an appropriate social response 83% for five of the last six probe sessions.
(e.g., smiled and said, ‘‘Yes, that is a big James’ mean percentage of looking back
balloon!’’) if the participant made a comment. increased to 67% (range, 17% to 100%).
The instructor did not provide additional The total percentage of probe sessions during
prompts or reinforcement. which the participants completed all three
responses (i.e., looked at the item, made a
RESULTS comment, and looked back at the instructor) for
each trial was 39% for Erica, 50% for Cooper,
Figure 1 shows the percentage of opportuni- and 15% for James.
ties in which the participant looked at the item Figure 4 shows the total number of bids for
referenced by the instructor. During baseline, joint attention initiated by each participant
the mean percentage of responding for Erica, during probe sessions. Erica never initiated a
Cooper, and James was 62%, 88%, and 72%, bid for joint attention when training for
respectively. All participants’ responding in- responding to bids was implemented. When
creased to 100% within one to five probe
training on initiating bids was begun, Erica did
sessions after we began training on responding
initiate a few bids during the probe sessions. A
to bids.
consistent increase in the frequency of bids did
Figure 2 shows the percentage of opportuni-
not occur until we implemented the checklist.
ties in which the participant made a comment
The number of bids decreased to one bid by the
about the target item. During baseline, mean
third session when we removed the checklist.
percentage of comment making was 38% for
The number of bids immediately increased to
Erica, 35% for Cooper, and 3% for James.
When training on responding to bids began, six when we reintroduced the checklist. Cooper
Erica’s responding during probe sessions in- initiated one bid for joint attention in baseline
creased to 100% and was maintained at 100% and only two bids when we implemented
after the fourth probe session for the duration of training on responding. Following training on
the study. Cooper’s mean percentage of com- initiating bids, the mean number of bids per
menting increased to 100% within three probe session increased to three, and he routinely
sessions and remained at 100% for seven of the initiated at least five bids during the last four
final eight probe sessions. James made a sessions. During baseline, James initiated one
comment on 100% of opportunities during bid for joint attention during 4 of the 11
four probe sessions, and responding was sessions. The number of bids per session ranged
maintained at 100% after the seventh probe from zero to two (M 5 0.5) when we began
session for the duration of the study. training on responding to bids. The total
Figure 3 shows the percentage of opportuni- number of bids per session ranged from one
ties in which the participant looked back at the to four (M 5 2.7) when we began training on
instructor. During baseline, mean percentage of initiating bids.
looking back was 4% for Erica, 15% for Pre- and posttests for novel setting and
Cooper, and 11% for James. When we began stimuli probes were conducted with all of the
training on responding to bids, Erica’s respond- participants. All of the participants looked at
ing was somewhat variable; however, she the items pre- and posttreatment, although
reached 100% during the eighth probe session there was a slight decrease in this response for
and obtained 100% consistently for six of the James (i.e., from 100% to 80%). All of the
last eight probe sessions. Cooper’s responding participants showed an increase in the percent-
increased to 100% within two sessions, fol- age of opportunities in which they made a
384 BRIDGET A. TAYLOR and HANNAH HOCH

Figure 1. Percentage of trials in which Erica (top), Cooper (middle), and James (bottom) looked at the target item
across sessions.
 TEACHING JOINT ATTENTION SKILLS 385

Figure 2. Percentage of opportunities in which Erica (top), Cooper (middle), and James (bottom) made a comment
about the target item across sessions.
386 BRIDGET A. TAYLOR and HANNAH HOCH

Figure 3. Percentage of opportunities in which Erica (top), Cooper (middle), and James (bottom) looked back at the
adult across sessions.
 TEACHING JOINT ATTENTION SKILLS 387

Figure 4. Total number of bids for joint attention initiated by Erica (top), Cooper (middle), and James (bottom)
across sessions.
388 BRIDGET A. TAYLOR and HANNAH HOCH

comment (i.e., Erica and Cooper increased to by social attention. As such, Erica’s responses
100%, and James increased from 0% to 60%). during these sessions may not have been bids for
Only Erica showed an increase in looking back joint attention. Nonetheless, her performance
at the instructor from pre- to posttest (i.e., from may be characteristic of some children with
17% to 75%). Erica and James demonstrated autism who require supplemental antecedent
an increase in the percentage of opportunities in stimuli and extrinsic rewards to establish these
which they made a bid for joint attention to responses. Future studies may want to deter-
67% and 20%, respectively. mine whether tangible rewards can be paired
with social interaction to create a conditioned
DISCUSSION reinforcer, and whether those rewards can
strengthen responses in children with autism
The present study supports previous research whose bids for joint attention may not
(e.g., MacDonald et al., 2006) indicating that necessarily be reinforced by adult attending
some children with autism engage in some of stimuli or social engagement.
the components of joint attention (e.g., looking The current study appears to be the first to
in the direction of a point) without specific have used only adult attending stimuli (i.e., the
instruction. By contrast, more complex or adult’s visual indicators that she was attending
socially governed responses (e.g., initiating bids to the item or event) and social engagement as
and coordinating gaze shift between an object
consequences for responses to and initiations for
and a person) may require direct intervention.
joint attention (with the exception of Erica).
During baseline in the present study, the
The findings support the hypothesis of Dube et
participants demonstrated moderate levels of
al. (2004) that socially relevant stimuli are
looking in the direction of the point, made few
necessary and functional reinforcers for some of
comments about the items, and rarely looked
the responses associated with joint attention.
back at the instructor. Performance improved
Further, in the present study, reinforcers were
during probe sessions for all participants once
social in nature and increased the likelihood
we introduced training for responding to bids.
that initiations would serve as mands for social
Erica never initiated a bid and Cooper and
reinforcers (e.g., adult attending stimuli and
James never made more than two bids during
social engagement) and not for the tangible
baseline or training for responding to bids,
item.
despite the presence of six potentially enticing
It is possible that the initiations for joint
and interesting items. This indicated that
learning to respond to bids for joint attention attention were tacts (e.g., labeling an upside-
did not lead to the skill of initiating bids. Thus, down umbrella) maintained by generalized
participants required specific instruction in the reinforcers (e.g., social comments from the
skill of initiating bids for joint attention. adult) and not mands for adult attending
Cooper and James responded favorably to the stimuli. Future research may want to determine
prompt delay procedure and began to initiate if initiations of bids for joint attention are
bids more frequently when we introduced mands (under the control of MOs) or tacts
training for initiating bids. By contrast, Erica (under the control of discriminative stimuli) by
required the introduction of a textual stimulus manipulating and examining the strength of the
combined with a tangible reinforcer to learn to MO systematically (e.g., conditions in which
initiate bids. Erica’s bids may have been under adult attention is available consistently vs. when
the discriminative control of the textual stim- it is unavailable; conditions in which the
ulus (i.e., the index card) and were maintained available items are more noteworthy or unusual
by access to the tangible reinforcer rather than vs. less noteworthy). It may be possible to
 TEACHING JOINT ATTENTION SKILLS 389

determine if the child’s initiation for joint There are several limitations to the present
attention occurs in response to an MO (and study. First, the participants demonstrated all
serves as a mand) by examining the child’s three responses (looking at the item, making a
orientation toward the adult when making the comment, and looking back) on 100% of trials
initiation: If the child orients toward the adult, only in 50% or fewer sessions. These low
it would suggest that his or her initiation was percentages appeared to be due to the inconsis-
more likely a mand for adult attending stimuli tency in the response of looking back at the
rather than a tact. instructor. Future studies may want to ensure
In general, gaze shifting (looking from the that criteria for mastery be several consecutive
object back to the instructor) proved to be sessions in which all three responses are
challenging to teach and remained a fairly completed on 100% of trials if the presentation
inconsistent response. It may be interesting in of all three responses truly comprise joint
future studies to determine if teaching the attention.
response of gaze shifting between an object and Second, participant-initiated bids about items
an adult prior to introducing it in training for that were not considered by the instructor as
joint attention would lead to faster acquisition noteworthy or enticing were redirected and not
during the training sessions. scored. These decisions were based on subjective
The response of looking back also may have rather than objective measures (i.e., judgment of
been difficult to shape because it may be the instructor). In this study we arranged
maintained by a different reinforcer than other particular stimuli in such a way that we assumed
components of joint attention (e.g., it may be would be evocative and function as an MO. It is
maintained by negative reinforcement rather possible that what is and is not an appropriate
than positive social reinforcement). Anecdotal- stimulus for occasioning a bid for joint attention
ly, we found that our participants more often may be highly idiosyncratic. As such, future
looked back at the instructor when the stimulus researchers may want to conduct assessments
was aversive, as in the case of a scary mask, with participants (or possibly typically develop-
seemingly to obtain information about the ing children) to ascertain the particular condi-
potential danger posed by the stimulus. Thus, tions and items that enhance the MO for joint
acquisition of the gaze shift may have been attention, as well as the functions of vocalizations
more difficult because not all stimuli were in these contexts (Kelley et al., 2007).
distressing, and the participant did not need to Third, Erica’s responses to bids and initia-
look back to obtain information about potential tions of bids tended to sound scripted, and the
danger with nondistressing stimuli (e.g., there quality of the response did not appear to
was no MO for negative reinforcement in resemble those of typical peers. Future studies
effect). Future studies may want to tease out the may want to incorporate social validity mea-
effects of these variables by assessing the sures (Whalen & Schreibman, 2003) to deter-
acquisition of gaze shifting under conditions mine how independent raters would have
in which an MO for information about a judged the responses of the children with
distressing or fear-provoking stimulus is in autism compared to typical peers.
effect compared to contexts in which an MO Fourth, this study examined only two of the
for social interaction is in effect. It may be that three possible reinforcement contingencies for
gaze shifting could be taught more readily in joint attention responses proposed by Dube et
conditions in which there is a sufficient MO for al. (2004): positive social reinforcement and, in
escape (e.g., as in the presence of a distressing some cases (e.g., with distressing stimuli),
stimulus; Michael, 1993). negative reinforcement. Future studies may
390 BRIDGET A. TAYLOR and HANNAH HOCH

want to systematically investigate the presence consequences that follow. This study supports
of the third possible reinforcement class (i.e., the premise that discriminative stimuli (e.g., the
that some joint attention responses might presence of an adult’s bid), social reinforcers
function to have the adult improve the positive (e.g., adult attending stimuli and social inter-
reinforcement value associated with the item or action), and motivating operations (e.g., the
event). presence of potentially visually enticing or
Lastly, this study incorporated only one pre- noteworthy objects) can be arranged to increase
and posttest assessment to determine if the joint attention responses. Prior research indi-
responses occurred in the presence of novel cates that better joint attention is associated
stimuli located in novel settings around the with improved language functioning in typically
school building. Although we conducted only developing children as well as children with
one posttest assessment probe, these data autism. Although the effects of acquiring these
suggest some challenges in generalizing respons- responses on the overall language functioning of
es beyond the treatment environment. It is the participants in this study are currently
unclear why, for example, some of the responses unknown, behavior-analytic procedures offer
decreased for some participants in the posttest tools to shape these responses and open the
probe compared to the pretest probe (e.g., door to future research. For a child with autism,
looking back at the instructor for Cooper and learning joint attention responses may open up
a different door: one to interactive communi-
James). In addition, having the instructor stop
cation and shared social experience.
in front of the noteworthy or unusually placed
item during the novel setting or stimuli probes
may have served as a prompt, thereby more REFERENCES
readily occasioning responses during the pretest Bakeman, R., & Adamson, L. B. (1984). Coordinating
probes. Future studies may want to increase the attention to people and objects in mother-infant and
peer-infant interaction. Child Development, 55,
likelihood of generalization by training joint 1278–1289.
attention responses in more natural settings or Baron-Cohen, S., Allen, J., & Gillberg, C. (1992). Can
varying the setting for training across each autism be detected at 18 months? The needle, the
haystack, and the CHAT. British Journal of Psychiatry,
training opportunity. Further, future researchers 161, 839–843.
should conduct more extensive pre- and posttest Bruner, J. (1975). From communication to language: A
measures to assess more thoroughly the impact psychological perspective. Cognition, 3, 255–287.
Butterworth, G. (1995). Origins of mind in perception
of training on responding in novel environ- and action. In C. Moore & P. J. Dunham (Eds.),
ments and to novel stimuli. Joint attention: Its origins and role in development (pp.
The development of joint attention skills is 29–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Charman, T. (1998). Specifying the nature and course of
associated with the emergence of social com- the joint attention impairment in autism in the
munication in typically developing toddlers. preschool years: Implications for diagnosis and
For children with autism, however, the devel- intervention. Autism, 2, 61–79.
Dube, W. V., MacDonald, R. P. F., Mansfield, R. C.,
opment of these responses can be delayed or Holcomb, W. L., & Ahearn, W. H. (2004). Toward a
nonexistent. This study is promising and offers behavioral analysis of joint attention. The Behavior
support to the growing body of literature that Analyst, 27, 197–207.
behavior-analytic procedures can be used to Jones, E. A., & Carr, E. G. (2004). Joint attention in
children with autism: Theory and intervention. Focus on
increase joint attention responses in children Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities, 19, 13–26.
with autism. As Dube et al. (2004) have noted, Kasari, C., Freeman, S., & Paparella, T. (2006). Joint
joint attention responses are emitted in the attention and symbolic play in young children with
autism: A randomized controlled intervention study.
presence of certain discriminative stimuli and Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47,
are learned and maintained based on the 611–620.
 TEACHING JOINT ATTENTION SKILLS 391

Kelley, M. E., Shillingsburg, M. A., Castro, M. J., Mundy, P., & Willoughby, J. (1996). Nonverbal
Addison, L. R., LaRue, R. H., & Martins, M. P. communication, joint attention, and early socio-
(2007). Assessment of the functions of vocal behavior emotional development. In M. Lewis & M. W.
in children with developmental disabilities: A repli- Sullivan (Eds.), Emotional development in atypical
cation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, children (pp. 65–88). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
571–576. Schertz, H. H., & Odom, S. L. (2004). Joint attention
MacDonald, R., Anderson, J., Dube, W. V., Geckeler, A., and early intervention with autism: A conceptual
Green, G., Holcomb, W., et al. (2006). Behavioral framework and promising approaches. Journal of
assessment of joint attention: A methodological Early Intervention, 27, 42–54.
report. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 27, Tomasello, M. (1995). Joint attention as social cognition.
138–150. In C. D. Moore & P. J. Dunham (Eds.), Joint
Michael, J. (1993). Establishing operations. The Behavior attention: Its origins and role in development (pp. 103–
Analyst, 16, 191–206. 130). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mundy, P. (1995). Joint attention and social-emotional Vaughan, A., Mundy, P., Block, J., Delgado, C., Gomez,
approach behavior in children with autism. Develop- Y., Meyer, J., et al. (2003). Child, caregiver, and
ment and Psychopathology, 7, 63–82. temperament contributions to infant joint attention.
Mundy, P., & Crowson, M. (1997). Joint attention Infancy, 4, 603–616.
and early social communication: Implication for Whalen, C., & Schreibman, L. (2003). Joint attention
research on intervention with autism. Journal of training for children with autism using behavior
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 27, 653– modification procedures. Journal of Child Psychology
676. and Psychiatry, 44, 456–468.
Mundy, P., Sigman, M., & Kasari, C. (1994). Joint
attention, developmental level, and symptom presen- Received July 24, 2006
tation in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Final acceptance December 14, 2006
Disabilities, 20, 115–128. Action Editor, Michele Wallace