Preference for progressive delays and concurrent physical therapy exercise in an adult with acquired brain injury

The purpose of this study was to increase self-control and engagement in a physical therapy task (head holding) for a man with acquired traumatic brain injury. Once impulsivity was observed (i.e., repeated impulsive choices), an experimental condition was introduced that consisted of choices between a small immediate reinforcer, a large fixed-delay reinforcer, and a large progressive-delay reinforcer. The participant showed a preference for the progressive-delay option, even when the duration of the delay exceeded that of the fixed delay. The results have implications for establishing optimal choice making and teaching life-enhancing skills.     

Self-control in children with autism: response allocation during delays to reinforcement.

This study examined the use of a progressive‐delay schedule of reinforcement to increase self‐control and decrease disruptive behavior in children with autism. When initially given the choice between an immediate smaller reinforcer and a larger delayed reinforcer, all participants chose the smaller reinforcer. When access to the larger reinforcer required either no activity or engaging in a concurrent task during the delay, all participants demonstrated both self‐control and preference for a response requirement. Disruptive behavior decreased during delays that required a concurrent task compared to sessions without an activity requirement.     

Enhancing tolerance to delayed reinforcers: the role of intervening activities

Three participants with moderate to profound mental retardation were exposed to choices between an immediate small amount and a delayed larger amount of a preferred reinforcer. All participants initially showed a relatively high preference for the smaller reinforcer, suggesting impulsive choice making. However this preference reversed, suggesting self-control, when the larger reinforcer was available immediately and, over time, its delay was gradually increased. Results highlight the potential utility of incorporating concurrent activities into self-control training paradigms.     

Acquisition of cocaine self-administration with unsignaled delayed reinforcement in rhesus monkeys

Six experimentally naive rhesus monkeys produced 0.01 mg/kg/infusion cocaine by lever pressing under a tandem fixed-ratio 1 differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule. One lever press initiated an unsignaled 15- or 30-s delay culminating in cocaine delivery. Each press made during the delay reset the delay interval. With two exceptions, responding was acquired and maintained at higher rates than responding on a second (inoperative) lever. For the exceptions, a cancellation contingency was arranged in which each formerly inoperative-lever response reset the tandem schedule. This manipulation reduced presses on the inoperative lever. Subsequently, the consequences of responding on the two levers were reversed, and the monkeys again responded at higher rates on the operative lever. As a comparison, 3 additional experimentally naive monkeys received response-independent cocaine deliveries. Although lever pressing was observed, it extinguished and was subsequently reestablished under the tandem schedule. The results suggest that although response-reinforcer contiguity is not required for cocaine to acquire reinforcing functions, a response-reinforcer relation appears necessary.     

A procedure to teach self-control to children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

This study examined the use of a progressive delay procedure combined with verbal mediation to teach self-control to children with attention deficit disorder. Results showed that when participants were initially given the choice between an immediate smaller reinforcer and a larger delayed reinforcer, all participants chose the smaller reinforcer. When slight delays to obtain a larger reinforcer were instated in conjunction with intervening verbal activity, all participants demonstrated self-control regardless of the content of the verbal activity.     

Designing interventions that include delayed reinforcement: implications of recent laboratory research

The search for robust and durable interventions in everyday situations typically involves the use of delayed reinforcers, sometimes delivered well after a target behavior occurs. Integrating the findings from laboratory research on delayed reinforcement can contribute to the design and analysis of those applied interventions. As illustrations, we examine articles from the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior that analyzed delayed reinforcement with respect to response allocation (A. M. Williams & Lattal, 1999), stimulus chaining (B. A. Williams, 1999), and self-control (Jackson & Hackenberg, 1996). These studies help to clarify the conditions under which delayed reinforcement (a) exercises control of behavior, (b) entails conditioned reinforcement, and (c) displaces the effects of immediate reinforcement. The research has applied implications, including the development of positive social behavior and teaching people to make adaptive choices. DESCRIPTORS: delayed reinforcement, response allocation, stimulus chains, self-control, integration of basic and applied research     

THE EFFECTS OF CHOICE ON SELF‐CONTROL

Three adolescents with traumatic brain injury performed a physical therapy task in the absence of programmed consequences or duration requirements. Next, the experimenter gave the participants the options of a smaller immediate reinforcer with no response requirement or a larger delayed reinforcer with a response requirement. Self‐control training exposed participants to a procedure during which they chose between a smaller immediate reinforcer and a progressively increasing delayed reinforcer whose values varied and were determined by a die roll. The participants chose whether they or the experimenter rolled the die. All participants initially demonstrated low baseline durations of the physical therapy task, chose the smaller immediate reinforcer during the choice baseline, and changed their preference to the larger delayed reinforcer during self‐control training.     

Self-control: teaching tolerance for delay in impulsive children.

We investigated a procedure to increase the selection of larger, more delayed reinforcers (i.e., more advantageous in the long run) over smaller immediate reinforcers, in an effort to increase a key aspect of self-control in children. Six preschoolers, including one comparison subject, identified by their teachers as impulsive, were preassessed and found consistently to select smaller immediate reinforcers over larger, more delayed ones. The teaching procedure consisted of gradually increasing the durations of the delay interval over many sessions. The follow-up assessments showed that 5 of these children increased the proportion of their choices of the delayed reinforcers. Before training, indifference points ranged from 1.7 to 51.7 s; following treatment, points rose to a range of 37.5 to at least 90 s, with 3 children preferring the larger reinforcer at all delay intervals tested. The results demonstrated the feasibility of teaching young children to make choices more advantageous to them in the long run.     

A parametric variation of delayed reinforcement in infants.

This study is an exploration of the parameters of delayed reinforcement with 6 infants (2 to 6 months old) in two experiments using single-subject repeated-reversal designs. In Experiment 1, unsignaled 3-s delayed reinforcement was used to increase infant vocalization rate when compared to a differential-reinforcement-of-other-than-vocalization condition and a yoked, no-contingency comparison condition. In Experiment 2, unsignaled 5-s delayed reinforcement was used to increase infant vocalization rate when compared to an alternating-treatments comparison condition. The alternating-treatments comparison consisted of 3-min components of differential reinforcement of other behavior and 3-min components of a nontreatment baseline. Successful conditioning was obtained in both experiments. These results contrast with those of previous infancy researchers who did not obtained conditioning with delays of 3 s and who attributed their findings to the limitations of the infant's memory capacity. We present an alternative conceptual framework and methodology for the analysis of delayed reinforcement in infants.     

Response duration is sensitive to both immediate and delayed reinforcement

We investigated the duration of lever pressing by rats when the delivery of appetitive reinforcers was contingent upon response duration. In the first experiment, response durations increased when duration requirements were imposed, and they decreased when duration requirements were removed. This effect occurred whether reinforcers were immediate or delayed by 8 s. In order to maintain the integrity of the delay intervals, reinforcer delivery was dependent upon both lever depression and release. In a second experiment, lever depression only and a response duration of at least 4 s were required for reinforcer delivery. Compared to immediate reinforcement conditions, delayed reinforcers increased both variability and the length of the maximum response durations. In a third experiment, immediate reinforcers were delivered contingent upon lever depression and release under a variety of duration requirements. Median lever‐press durations tracked the contingencies rapidly. Across all three experiments, rats emitted numerous response durations that were too short to satisfy the reinforcer requirements, and bimodal distributions similar to those produced by differential reinforcement of low rate schedules were evident for most rats. In many aspects, response duration responds to reinforcement parameters in a fashion similar to rate of discrete responding, but an examination of this continuous dimension of behavior may provide additional information about environment–behavior relationships.     

Resisting Everything Except Temptation: Evidence and an Explanation for Domain‐specific Impulsivity

We propose a model of impulsivity that predicts both domain‐general and domain‐specific variance in behaviours that produce short‐term gratification at the expense of long‐term goals and standards. Specifically, we posit that domain‐general impulsivity is explained by domain‐general self‐control strategies and resources, whereas domain‐specific impulsivity is explained by how tempting individuals find various impulsive behaviours, and to a lesser extent, in perceptions of their long‐term harm. Using a novel self‐report measure, factor analyses produced six (non‐exhaustive) domains of impulsive behaviour (Studies 1–2): work, interpersonal relationships, drugs, food, exercise and finances. Domain‐general self‐control explained 40% of the variance in domain‐general impulsive behaviour between individuals, r_effect = .71. Domain‐specific temptation (r_effect = .83) and perceived harm (r_effect = ?.26) explained 40% and 2% of the unique within‐individual variance in impulsive behaviour, respectively (59% together). In Study 3, we recruited individuals in special interest groups (e.g. procrastinators) to confirm that individuals who are especially tempted by behaviours in their target domain are not likely to be more tempted in non‐target domains. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Immediate reinforcement in delayed reward learning in pigeons

Pigeons were trained on simultaneous red-green discrimination procedures with delayed reward and sequences of stimuli during the delay. In Experiment 1, three stimuli appeared during the 60-second intervals between the correct responses and reward, and the incorrect responses and nonreward. The stimulus that immediately followed a correct response also preceded nonreward, and the stimulus that followed an incorrect response preceded reward. These stimuli were 10 or .33 second in duration for different groups. Stimuli during the remainder of the delay interval differed following correct and incorrect responses. Group 10 initially persisted in the nonrewarded choice, but shifted to a preponderance of rewarded responses after further training. Group .33 rapidly acquired the correct response. Similar results were obtained in Experiment 2 where delay intervals consisted of opposite sequences of two stimuli of equal duration and total delays were 6, 20, or 60 seconds. Early in training, generalization of differential conditioned-reinforcing properties from the conditions preceding reward and nonreward to postchoice conditions had a greater effect relative to backchaining than it did later. It was concluded that delayed-reward learning is best analyzed in terms of the conditioned-reinforcing value of the patterns of cues that follow immediately after rewarded and nonrewarded responses.     

Further examination of factors that influence preference for positive versus negative reinforcement

Factors that influence choice between qualitatively different reinforcers (e.g., a food item or a break from work) are important to consider when arranging treatments for problem behavior. Previous findings indicate that children who engage in problem behavior maintained by escape from demands may choose a food item over the functional reinforcer during treatment (DeLeon, Neidert, Anders, & Rodriguez-Catter, 2001; Lalli et al., 1999). However, a number of variables may influence choice between concurrently available forms of reinforcement. An analogue for treatment situations in which positive reinforcement for compliance is in direct competition with negative reinforcement for problem behavior was used in the current study to evaluate several variables that may influence choice. Participants were 5 children who had been diagnosed with developmental disabilities and who engaged in problem behavior maintained by escape from demands. In the first phase, the effects of task preference and schedule of reinforcement on choice between a 30-s break and a high-preference food item were evaluated. The food item was preferred over the break, regardless of the preference level of the task or the reinforcement schedule, for all but 1 participant. In the second phase, the quality of the break was manipulated by combining escape with toys, attention, or both. Only 1 participant showed preference for the enriched break. In the third phase, choice of a medium- or low-preference food item versus the enriched break was evaluated. Three of 4 participants showed preference for the break over the less preferred food item. Results extend previous research by identifying some of the conditions under which individuals who engage in escape-maintained behavior will prefer a food reinforcer over the functional one.     

The effects of behavioral history on response acquisition with immediate and delayed reinforcement

Effects of prior exposure to the experimental chamber with levers present or absent and variable-time (VT) 60-s water deliveries arranged during one, five, or no 1-hr sessions were examined in rats during a 6-hr response-acquisition session in which presses on one lever produced water delivery immediately or after a 15-s resetting delay, and presses on the other lever canceled scheduled water deliveries. Response acquisition was (a) slower to occur when water deliveries were delayed, (b) most consistent in groups that had received five VT sessions, and (c) impaired by the presence of levers only when there had been five VT sessions and water deliveries were delayed during the acquisition session.     

Acquisition of lever-press responding in rats with delayed reinforcement: A comparison of three procedures

The present study examined the acquisition of lever pressing in rats under three procedures in which food delivery was delayed by 4, 8, and 16 seconds relative to the response. Under the nonresetting delay procedure, food followed the response selected for reinforcement after a specified interval elapsed; responses during this interval had no programmed effect. Under the resetting procedure, the response selected for reinforcement initiated an interval to food delivery that was reset by each subsequent response. Under the stacked delay procedure, every response programmed delivery of food t seconds after its occurrence. Two control groups were studied, one that received food immediately after each lever press and another that never received food. With the exception of the group that did not receive food, responding was established with every procedure at every delay value without autoshaping or shaping. Although responding was established under the resetting delay procedure, response rates were generally not as high as under the other two procedures. These findings support the results of other recent investigations in demonstrating that a response not previously reinforced can be brought to strength by delayed reinforcement in the absence of explicit training.     

A COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTS OF BRIEF RULES, A TIMER, AND PREFERRED TOYS ON SELF-CONTROL

Some children make impulsive choices (i.e., choose a small but immediate reinforcer over a large but delayed reinforcer). Previous research has shown that delay fading, providing an alternative activity during the delay, teaching participants to repeat a rule during the delay, combining delay fading with an alternative activity, and combining delay fading with a countdown timer are effective for increasing self‐control (i.e., choosing the large but delayed reinforcer over the small but immediate reinforcer). The purpose of the current study was to compare the effects of various interventions in the absence of delay fading (i.e., providing brief rules, providing a countdown timer during the delay, or providing preferred toys during the delay) on self‐control. Results suggested that providing brief rules or a countdown timer during the delay was ineffective for enhancing self‐control. However, providing preferred toys during the delay effectively enhanced self‐control.