AN EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF “SPILLOVER” EFFECTS ON THE SOCIAL INTERACTION OF BEHAVIORALLY HANDICAPPED PRESCHOOL CHILDRENsp1

The effects of prompting and social reinforcement directed to target subjects on their social behavior and that of peers who never received prompting and reinforcement for positive social behavior, were examined. In a combined reversal and multiple-baseline design, three behaviorally handicapped preschool boys who exhibited divergent social behavior repertoires and varied histories with social reinforcement events, were sequentially exposed to intervention conditions in order to investigate “spillover” of treatment effects. Prompting and reinforcement increased positive social behavior and decreased negative social behavior emitted by all target subjects. The results also demonstrated a “spillover” effect on two target subjects, who at various times were not under intervention, and on the peers as well. The findings suggest that: (a) the direct and indirect effects of intervention procedures may be enhanced by designing treatment based on the social repertoire and reinforcement histories of the subjects; and (b) the treatment “spillover” effect may be increased by applying procedures to two children at once, rather than to one at a time.     

USE OF NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT IN THE TREATMENT OF SELF-INJURIOUS BEHAVIOR

Behavioral assessment procedures were used to determine the maintaining conditions of self-injury exhibited by 2 children with severe multiple handicaps. For both children, negative reinforcement (escape from grooming activities) was determined to be the maintaining reinforcer for self-injury (hand/arm biting) within an alternating treatments design. The treatment packages involved the use of negative reinforcement (brief escape from grooming activities) contingent upon a behavior that was incompatible with self-injury (reaching and pressing a microswitch that activated a prerecorded message of “stop”). Treatment was evaluated with a reversal design for 1 child and with a multiple baseline across grooming activities for the 2nd child. The treatment led to a marked decrease in self-injury for both children. At follow-up, high rates of self-injury were reported for the 1st child, but low rates of self-injury and an increase in task-related appropriate behavior were observed for the 2nd child.     

THE CLASS SPECIFIC EFFECTS OF COMPLIANCE TRAINING WITH “DO” AND “DON'T” REQUESTS: ANALOGUE ANALYSIS AND CLASSROOM APPLICATION

Two experiments are reported in which the relationship between compliance with “do” and “don't” requests was examined with developmentally disabled children. In Experiment 1, a multiple baseline design across subjects with counterbalanced treatment conditions was used to evaluate a compliance training program composed of four phases: (a) baseline, during which no consequences were delivered for compliance, (b) reinforcement for compliance with one targeted “do” request, (c) reinforcement for compliance with one targeted “don't” request, and (d) follow-up with reinforcement on a variable ratio schedule for compliance with any “do” or “don't” request. Results of probes conducted before and after training within each condition indicated that generalized compliance occurred only with requests of the same type as the target exemplar (“do” or “don't”). In Experiment 2, these results were replicated in a classroom setting. Following collection of baseline probe data on student compliance, a teacher training program was successfully implemented to increase reinforcement of compliance first with one “do” and subsequently with one “don't” request of a target student. Results of multiple baseline probes across “do” and “don't” requests indicated that the teacher generalized and maintained reinforcement of compliance with other requests of the same type and to other students, with a resulting increase in student compliance with the type of requests reinforced. The impact of treatment on both teacher and student behavior was socially validated via consumer ratings. Implications of these findings with respect to response class formation and compliance training programs are discussed.     

EVALUATION OF THE “CONTROL OVER REINFORCEMENT” COMPONENT IN FUNCTIONAL COMMUNICATION TRAINING

The effectiveness of functional communication training (FCT) as a treatment for behavior disorders has been attributed to a number of variables, one of which is the individual's ability to exert control over the delivery of reinforcement. We evaluated this component of FCT by exposing individuals to conditions in which their behavior either did or did not affect the delivery of reinforcement. Three adults with mental retardation who engaged in self-injurious behavior (SIB) participated. Following a functional analysis of their SIB, the effects of FCT were compared to those of noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) in a multielement design. The amount of reinforcement during both conditions was equated by yoking the schedule of reinforcement during NCR sessions to that in effect during FCT sessions. Results indicated that FCT and NCR were equally effective in reducing the SIB of all participants and suggest that control over reinforcement delivery may not affect the degree to which FCT produces behavioral suppression. However, a different benefit of FCT was evident in the results: More consistent increases in the alternative response were observed during the FCT condition than during the NCR condition.     

Selective copying of the majority suggests children are broadly “optimal‐” rather than “over‐” imitators

Human children, in contrast to other species, are frequently cast as prolific “over‐imitators”. However, previous studies of “over‐imitation” have overlooked many important real‐world social dynamics, and may thus provide an inaccurate account of this seemingly puzzling and potentially maladaptive phenomenon. Here we investigate this topic using a cultural evolutionary approach, focusing particularly on the key adaptive learning strategy of majority‐biased copying. Most “over‐imitation” research has been conducted using consistent demonstrations to the observer, but we systematically varied the frequency of demonstrators that 4‐ to 6‐year‐old children observed performing a causally irrelevant action. Children who “over‐imitate” inflexibly should copy the majority regardless of whether the majority solution omits or includes a causally irrelevant action. However, we found that children calibrated their tendency to acquire the majority behavior, such that copying did not extend to majorities that performed irrelevant actions. These results are consistent with a highly functional, adaptive integration of social and causal information, rather than explanations implying unselective copying or causal misunderstanding. This suggests that our species might be better characterized as broadly “optimal‐” rather than “over‐” imitators.     

DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT OF OTHER BEHAVIOR AND NONCONTINGENT REINFORCEMENT AS CONTROL PROCEDURES DURING THE MODIFICATION OF A PRESCHOOLER'S COMPLIANCE1

Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) and noncontingent reinforcement were compared as control procedures during the modification of a 3-yr-old preschooler's compliance. The recorded reinforcer was teacher proximity (within 3 ft (0.9 m) of the subject for at least 5 sec) which was often accompanied by positive verbal comments that varied in content across experimental conditions. The verbal content during contingent reinforcement might have been: “Thank you for picking up the blocks”; during noncontingent reinforcement: “You're wearing a pretty dress”; and during DRO: “I don't blame you for not picking up because it isn't any fun”. Contingent reinforcement increased compliance in all manipulation conditions. Noncontingent reinforcement decreased compliance during two reversal conditions. However, the behavior was variable and did not decrease to the low levels reached during the two DRO reversals.     

EVALUATING TREATMENT CHALLENGES WITH DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT OF ALTERNATIVE BEHAVIOR

In prior research, differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) has been implemented at optimal treatment values: Problem behavior is never reinforced, and alternative behavior is always reinforced. However, in application, DRA is unlikely to be conducted optimally. In this study, following a functional analysis phase and a differential reinforcement at full implementation phase, we challenged initially positive treatment effects for 3 participants by implementing DRA at less than optimal parameters. For example, some occurrences of problem behavior were reinforced, and some occurrences of alternative behavior were not reinforced. Results suggested that when exposed to DRA at full implementation, participants showed a bias toward appropriate behavior in subsequent conditions during which “mistakes” (treatment challenges) were intentionally introduced. In addition, the negative effects of treatment challenges were quickly reversible, in comparison to the positive effects of DRA, which were not quickly reversible in the face of treatment challenges.     

An examination of vicarious reinforcement processes in children

The primary purpose of the present investigation was to examine vicarious reinforcement processes in children. More specifically, the effects on one child of observing another same-sex child receive direct reinforcement were explored across three different age levels. Subjects were 216 children, randomly assigned to experimental or control conditions. For the control condition, neither child in the same-sex, same-age dyad received reinforcement for performance on the experimental task. For the experimental condition, one child in each dyad received direct social reinforcement for performance, while the other child received no social reinforcement for similar performance. Although children who observed other children receive direct social reinforcement initially increased performance (as predicted by vicarious reinforcement hypotheses), their performance soon decreased and was characterized by verbal and nonverbal responses which appeared to interfere with task performance (e.g., “Hey, I can do them too”, “Look at mine”, “There's no use in trying”). It appeared as if these observing children were being punished for their performance. Such effects were more pronounced for older than younger children; however, they were observed equally in boys and girls. Results were discussed in terms of vicarious reinforcement and “implicit punishment” hypotheses. Implications for applied settings were also addressed.     

EFFECTS OF SUBJECT- VERSUS EXPERIMENTER-SELECTED REINFORCERS ON THE BEHAVIOR OF INDIVIDUALS WITH PROFOUND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

Results from a number of studies have shown that individuals with profound developmental disabilities often show differential approach behavior to stimuli presented in a variety of formats, and that such behavior is a reasonably good predictor of reinforcement effects when these “preferred” stimuli are used subsequently in a contingent arrangement. Recent data suggest that reinforcement effects may be enhanced further by allowing individuals to select, just prior to training sessions, which (of several) preferred stimuli would be used as reinforcers, but whether this method is superior to one based on selection by a teacher or therapist has not been adequately addressed. We compared the effects of these two methods of reinforcer selection on rates of responding on a free-operant task, using stimuli previously identified as potential reinforcers. Results obtained with 4 subjects indicated little or no difference in reinforcement effects when stimuli were selected by subjects rather than experimenters. Implications of these results with respect to choice and its relation to reinforcement are discussed.     

REDUCING AGGRESSIVE AND SELF-INJURIOUS BEHAVIOR OF INSTITUTIONALIZED RETARDED CHILDREN THROUGH REINFORCEMENT OF OTHER BEHAVIORS1

Aggressive and self-injurious behaviors of four retarded children were reduced by combining various techniques with the differential reinforcement of other behaviors (DRO). In one study, aggressive responses of a severely retarded child were reduced when DRO was combined with a 30-sec timeout. In a second study, various aggressive classroom behaviors were reduced when the child was told “no” for an inappropriate response but earned puzzle pieces for periods of time when inappropriate responses did not occur. Exchangeable tokens were given to a third subject for every 15 min in which aggressive responding did not occur, while each inappropriate response resulted in the loss of all tokens accrued. Responding was decreased to a level far below baseline. For a fourth child, self-injurious responses were followed by “no”, and intervals of time in which no self-injurious responding occurred earned candy. The rate of this behavior reduced significantly. In each case, the DRO procedure combined with the other techniques proved to be manageable for the teacher and successful in reducing the inappropriate behavior.     

STIMULUS CONTROL IN THE CLASSROOM AS A FUNCTION OF THE BEHAVIOR REINFORCED

Eight fifth- and sixth-grade children with behavior problems performed in a classroom under three conditions: (1) unreinforced baseline, (2) reinforcement for being on task, and (3) reinforcement for the accuracy and rate of math problems solved. The teacher was absent for a portion of the class session under each of these conditions. In the teacher's absence, on-task behavior declined markedly and disruption markedly increased, regardless of the reinforcement condition in operation. In addition, the teacher's absence resulted in fewer problems attempted and decreased accuracy. However, the extent to which the children became disruptive was reduced and the number of problems attempted increased when reinforcement was contingent on academic accuracy and rate, instead of being contingent on being on task. The results suggest that by providing contingencies for the products of a child's classroom activities, rather than for being on task, the child will become more independent of the teacher's presence, and more under the control of the academic materials.     

Delivering alternative reinforcement in a distinct context reduces its counter‐therapeutic effects on relapse

Delivery of alternative reinforcers in the presence of stimuli previously associated with reinforcement for target behavior increases the susceptibility of target behavior to relapse. To explore contingencies that might mitigate this counter‐therapeutic effect, we trained pigeons on a procedure that entailed extinction of previously reinforced target‐key pecking, access to a distinct stimulus context contingently on refraining from target behavior (differential‐reinforcement‐of‐other‐behavior; DRO), and reinforcement of alternative‐key pecks (differential‐reinforcement of alternative behavior; DRA) in that context. This DRO‐DRA treatment was compared with standard DRA in successive conditions, counterbalanced across pigeons. Target behavior extinguished more rapidly in the Standard‐DRA condition. When alternative reinforcement was discontinued, however, there was less resurgence after DRO‐DRA than after Standard DRA. In a third condition, the DRO contingency was suspended so that the former DRA stimuli were not presented (DRO‐NAC), and resurgence was greater than in the Standard‐DRA and DRO‐DRA conditions. Reinstatement produced by response‐independent reinforcers was small and similar across conditions. Subsequent reacquisition of target‐key pecking under baseline reinforcement conditions was faster following DRO‐NAC than Standard‐DRA or DRO‐DRA. These findings suggest that DRO‐DRA might serve as a useful method in clinical settings for reducing problem behavior while minimizing the threat of posttreatment relapse.     

EFFECTS OF DIRECT,INTERMITTENT, AND VICARIOUS REINFORCEMENT PROCEDURES ON THE DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF INSTRUCTION-FOLLOWING BEHAVIORS IN A GROUP OF YOUNG CHILDREN1

A group of young children (mean age: 2.5 yr) were instructed to follow different requests by a teacher in a day-care setting. Experiment I verified that mean group instruction following was low (10%) despite the opportunity for “observational learning”, i.e., the group of 12 children could watch a nonreinforced adult comply with the teacher's request. In Experiment II, when positive consequences were provided contingent on the adult model's behavior, mean group instruction following was relatively unaffected (14%). When direct reinforcement was given to four peer models, each for several sessions, the individual performances of three of the four peer models was elevated (from 50% to 80%); however, the mean performance of the remaining nonreinforced children (N = 7) was only moderately affected (21%). When reinforcement contingencies were again changed, so that each group member was provided direct, but intermittent reinforcement, mean group performance increased substantially to levels of over 70%. Once instruction following was high, presentation of reinforcement only to one peer model sufficed to maintain performance whereas earlier, this same vicarious reinforcement procedure had failed to establish group compliance. The maintenance of instruction-following behavior when reinforcement was applied solely to one child was interpreted mainly in terms of a high resistance to extinction following a history of intermittent reinforcement rather than a “vicarious”- or “self”-reinforcement mechanism. Finally, removal and re-introduction of group intermittent reinforcement, respectively, lowered performance (to levels of 40%) and elevated (to levels of 65%) the group's performance.     

THE ROLE OF ATTENTION IN THE TREATMENT OF ATTENTION-MAINTAINED SELF-INJURIOUS BEHAVIOR: NONCONTINGENT REINFORCEMENT AND DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT OF OTHER BEHAVIOR

Because there are potentially serious limitations to differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) (which is probably the most widely used treatment procedure for behavior problems), we examined an alternative procedure—noncontingent reinforcement (NCR). Three females with developmental disabilities, all of whom engaged in severe self-injurious behavior, participated. During a pretreatment functional analysis, each subject's self-injury was shown to be differentially sensitive to social attention as a maintaining consequence. Next, each subject was exposed to a DRO treatment and an NCR treatment. During DRO, attention was delivered contingent on the absence of self-injury for prespecified intervals. During NCR, attention was delivered on a fixed-time schedule that was not influenced by the subject's behavior. Results showed that both procedures were highly effective in reducing self-injury, probably because the functional reinforcer for self-injury was used during treatment. Furthermore, there was evidence that NCR attenuated several of the limitations of DRO. These results are particularly interesting in light of the long experimental history of NCR as a control rather than as a therapeutic procedure.     

Assessment and treatment of problem behavior maintained by escape from attention and access to tangible items.

The results obtained from two consecutive functional analyses conducted with a 6‐year‐old child with autism are described. In the initial functional analysis, the highest rates of problem behavior occurred in the play condition. In that condition, the delivery of attention appeared to occasion problem behaviors. A second functional analysis was conducted wherein an escape from attention condition and a tangible condition were added. In the second functional analysis, higher rates of responding were observed in the escape from attention and tangible conditions. The results suggested that problem behavior was maintained by negative reinforcement in the form of escape from attention and positive reinforcement in the form of gaining access to preferred tangible items. Problem behavior was treated using functional communication training combined with noncontingent reinforcement.     

MAINTENANCE OF THERAPEUTIC CHANGE BY MOMENTARY DRO

Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) involves delivery of reinforcement at the end of an interval during which the target behavior has not occurred. Momentary DRO, however, is a procedure in which reinforcement is delivered if a response did not occur at the end of an interval. We examined the extent to which momentary DRO maintained suppression, following initial treatment with whole-interval DRO, of nine retarded students' maladaptive behavior. Results indicate that momentary DRO maintained response suppression comparable to that obtained by whole-interval DRO.     

EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS AND EXTINCTION OF SELF-INJURIOUS ESCAPE BEHAVIOR

Three studies are presented in which environmental correlates of self-injurious behavior were systematically examined and later used as the basis for treatment. In Study 1, 7 developmentally disabled subjects were exposed to a series of conditions designed to identify factors that maintain self-injurious behavior: attention contingent on self-injurious behavior (positive reinforcement), escape from or avoidance of demands contingent on self-injurious behavior (negative reinforcement), alone (automatic reinforcement), and play (control). Results of a multielement design showed that each subject's self-injurious behavior occurred more frequently in the demand condition, suggesting that the behavior served an avoidance or escape function. Six of the 7 subjects participated in Study 2. During educational sessions, “escape extinction” was applied as treatment for their self-injurious behavior in a multiple baseline across subjects design. Results showed noticeable reduction or elimination of self-injurious behavior for each subject and an increase in compliance with instructions in all subjects for whom compliance data were taken. The 7th subject, whose self-injurious behavior during Study 1 occurred in response to medical demands (i.e., physical examinations), participated in Study 3. Treatment was comprised of extinction, as in Study 2, plus reinforcement for tolerance of the examination procedure, and was evaluated in a multiple baseline across settings design. Results showed that the treatment was successful in eliminating self-injurious behavior and that its effects transferred across eight new therapists and three physicians. General implications for the design, interpretation, and uses of assessment studies are discussed.     

Resurgence as Choice: Implications for promoting durable behavior change

Resurgence is an increase in a previously suppressed behavior resulting from a worsening in reinforcement conditions for current behavior. Resurgence is often observed following successful treatment of problem behavior with differential reinforcement when reinforcement for an alternative behavior is subsequently omitted or reduced. The efficacy of differential reinforcement has long been conceptualized in terms of quantitative models of choice between concurrent operants (i.e., the matching law). Here, we provide an overview of a novel quantitative model of resurgence called Resurgence as Choice (RaC), which suggests that resurgence results from these same basic choice processes. We review the failures of the only other quantitative model of resurgence (i.e., Behavioral Momentum Theory) and discuss its shortcomings with respect to the limited range of circumstances about which it makes predictions in applied settings. Finally, we describe how RaC overcomes these shortcomings and discuss implications of the model for promoting durable behavior change.     

Theoretical implications of quantitative properties of interval timing and probability estimation in mouse and rat

Although theoretical discussions typically assume that positive and negative reinforcement differ, the literature contains little unambiguous evidence that they produce differential behavioral effects. To test whether the two types of consequences control behavior differently, we pitted money‐gain positive reinforcement and money‐loss‐avoidance negative reinforcement, scheduled through identically programmed variable‐cycle schedules, against each other in concurrent schedules. Contingencies of response‐produced feedback, normally different in positive and negative reinforcement, were made symmetrical. Steeper matching slopes were produced compared to a baseline consisting of all positive reinforcement. This free‐operant differential outcomes effect supports the notion that that stimulus‐presentation positive reinforcement and stimulus‐elimination negative reinforcement are functionally “different.” However, a control experiment showed that the feedback asymmetry of more traditional positive and negative reinforcement schedules also is sufficient to create a “difference” when the type of consequence is held constant. We offer these findings as a small step in meeting the very large challenge of moving negative reinforcement theory beyond decades of relative quiescence.