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.     

Evaluation of fixed momentary dro schedules under signaled and unsignaled arrangements

Fixed momentary schedules of differential reinforcement of other behavior (FM DRO) generally have been ineffective as treatment for problem behavior. Because most early research on FM DRO included presentation of a signal at the end of the DRO interval, it is unclear whether the limited effects of FM DRO were due to (a) the momentary response requirement of the schedule per se or (b) discrimination of the contingency made more salient by the signal. To separate these two potential influences, we compared the effects of signaled versus unsignaled FM DRO with 4 individuals with developmental disabilities whose problem behavior was maintained by social-positive reinforcement. During signaled FM DRO, the experimenter presented a visual stimulus 3 s prior to the end of the DRO interval and delivered reinforcement contingent on the absence of problem behavior at the second the interval elapsed. Unsignaled DRO was identical except that interval termination was not signaled. Results indicated that signaled FM DRO was effective in decreasing 2 subjects' problem behavior, whereas an unsignaled schedule was required for the remaining 2 subjects. These results suggest that the response requirement per se of FM DRO may not be problematic if it is not easily discriminated.     

A comparison of fixed momentary differential reinforcement of other behavior to variable momentary differential reinforcement of other behavior to reduce challenging behavior

Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) is commonly used to reduce behavioral excesses. Momentary DRO schedules involve delivery of reinforcement contingent upon the absence of the target behavior at a given moment. Two variations of momentary DRO exist: fixed-momentary (FM) DRO and variable-momentary (VM) DRO. In the current study, we directly compared FM-DRO and VM-DRO schedules to reduce challenging behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement exhibited by four children with autism spectrum disorder. The results suggest that both the DRO schedules were equally effective to reduce challenging behavior. A social validity measure showed that most caregivers rated the VM-DRO as a preferred schedule and noted the potential for FM-DRO schedule to become more discriminable over time, which could reduce its effectiveness. However, most caregivers also commented that the FM-DRO schedule was easier to implement.     

DRO contingencies: an analysis of variable-momentary schedules.

We conducted several comparative analyses to determine the relative effectiveness of variable-momentary differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior (VM DRO) schedules. Three individuals who had been diagnosed with mental retardation participated. Results of functional analyses indicated that their self-injurious behavior (SIB) was maintained by social-positive reinforcement. Two individuals participated in a two-stage comparative analysis within multielement and multiple baseline designs. Fixed-interval (FI) and variable-interval (VI) DRO were compared in the first stage; VI DRO and VM DRO were compared in the second. All three schedules effectively reduced the participants' SIB. Treatment for the 3rd individual was conducted in a reversal design to examine the effects of VM DRO when it was implemented in isolation, and results indicated that the procedure was effective in reducing SIB. These findings suggest that VM DRO schedules may represent attractive alternatives to traditional FI schedules because momentary schedules do not require continuous monitoring and may result in higher rates of reinforcement.     

The role of adventitious reinforcement during differential reinforcement of other behavior: A systematic replication

Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) is commonly used to decrease problem behavior by presenting reinforcers contingent upon the absence of a target response. Although it is well demonstrated that DROs decrease response rates, the processes producing these decreases are not well understood. The present study systematically replicated previous research assessing whether adventitious reinforcement of alternative behavior contributes to the effectiveness of DRO. We presented university students with two options on a computer and reinforced target responding on a variable-ratio schedule. Next, we compared decreases in target-response rates and any increases in alternative responding during DRO schedules versus yoked variable-time schedules or extinction probes. DRO schedules resulted in the lowest target-response rate and highest alternative-response rate. These findings generally provide some support for the adventitious reinforcement of “other” behavior.     

Hill-climbing by pigeons

Pigeons were exposed to two types of concurrent operant-reinforcement schedules in order to determine what choice rules determine behavior on these schedules. In the first set of experiments, concurrent variable-interval, variable-interval schedules, key-peck responses to either of two alternative schedules produced food reinforcement after a random time interval. The frequency of food-reinforcement availability for the two schedules was varied over different ranges for different birds. In the second series of experiments, concurrent variable-ratio, variable-interval schedules, key-peck responses to one schedule produced food reinforcement after a random time interval, whereas food reinforcement occurred for an alternative schedule only after a random number of responses. Results from both experiments showed that pigeons consistently follow a behavioral strategy in which the alternative schedule chosen at any time is the one which offers the highest momentary reinforcement probability (momentary maximizing). The quality of momentary maximizing was somewhat higher and more consistent when both alternative reinforcement schedules were time-based than when one schedule was time-based and the alternative response-count based. Previous attempts to provide evidence for the existence of momentary maximizing were shown to be based upon faulty assumptions about the behavior implied by momentary maximizing and resultant inappropriate measures of behavior.     

Varying reinforcement magnitude on interval schedules

In Experiment 1, rats were trained on either a random-interval or a variable-interval 60-sec schedule of reinforcement, and reinforcement magnitude was varied across conditions between one and four pellets. Although the two schedules maintained different patterns of behaviour, patterns and rates of responding were not systematically affected by the variation in reinforcement magnitude. In Experiment 2, a regulated probability interval schedule that generated similar rates of reinforcement to those of the schedules of Experiment 1 was used, with the pattern of behaviour generated resembling that typical of a random-interval schedule. Changing reinforcement magnitude again produced few systematic changes in behaviour. In Experiment 3, a variable-ratio schedule was used within a procedure that otherwise resembled that of Experiments 1 and 2. Increasing the reinforcement magnitude now decreased the rates of responding, and examination of the patterns of responding showed that this came about because rates of responding were higher early in the interreinforcer interval in the one-pellet condition. These experiments demonstrate the insensitivity of behaviour under interval schedules to changes in reinforcement magnitude and suggest the operation of mechanisms different from those engaged by ratio schedules and discretetrial learning procedures.     

Tests of behavior momentum in simple and multiple schedules with rats and pigeons.

Four experiments examined the relationship between rate of reinforcement and resistance to change in rats' and pigeons' responses under simple and multiple schedules of reinforcement. In Experiment 1, 28 rats responded under either simple fixed-ratio, variable-ratio, fixed-interval, or variable-interval schedules; in Experiment 2, 3 pigeons responded under simple fixed-ratio schedules. Under each schedule, rate of reinforcement varied across four successive conditions. In Experiment 3, 14 rats responded under either a multiple fixed-ratio schedule or a multiple fixed-interval schedule, each with two components that differed in rate of reinforcement. In Experiment 4, 7 pigeons responded under either a multiple fixed-ratio or a multiple fixed-interval schedule, each with three components that also differed in rate of reinforcement. Under each condition of each experiment, resistance to change was studied by measuring schedule-controlled performance under conditions with prefeeding, response-independent food during the schedule or during timeouts that separated components of the multiple schedules, and by measuring behavior under extinction. There were no consistent differences between rats and pigeons. There was no direct relationship between rates of reinforcement and resistance to change when rates of reinforcement varied across successive conditions in the simple schedules. By comparison, in the multiple schedules there was a direct relationship between rates of reinforcement and resistance to change during most tests of resistance to change. The major exception was delivering response-independent food during the schedule; this disrupted responding, but there was no direct relationship between rates of reinforcement and resistance to change in simple- or multiple-schedule contexts. The data suggest that rate of reinforcement determines resistance to change in multiple schedules, but that this relationship does not hold under simple schedules.     

Concurrent schedules: Maximization versus reinforcement of changeover behaviour

Pigeons responded on concurrent variable-interval 180-sec variable-interval 36-sec schedules during Conditions 1 and 3 of Experiment 1. Condition 2 arranged variable-interval 60-sec schedules for both response alternatives. The schedule assigned to the alternative that was associated with the variable-interval 36-sec schedule in Conditions 1 and 3 operated only when the subject responded on that alternative. The proportion of time spent responding on the alternative with the conventional variable-interval 60-sec schedule increased during Condition 2, but exclusive choice of that alternative did not develop. This result is inconsistent with maximization of the overall reinforcement rate and with maximization of the momentary probability of reinforcement (momentary maximizing). Increasing time proportions were also found in Experiment 2, which arranged similar conditions, except that reinforcement was provided on a variable-time basis. The time proportions were close to the momentary maximizing prediction in Experiment 2. The results of both experiments can be explained if it is assumed that time allocation is controlled by delayed reinforcement of changeovers between alternatives.     

Some effects of fixed-interval duration on response rate in a two-component chain schedule

In Exp. I three pigeons were trained on a two-component chain schedule. Responding on a 1-min variable-interval schedule in the initial component led to a sequence of two fixed-interval schedules in the terminal component. The rate of reinforcement in the terminal component was kept constant while the values of the two fixed intervals were varied. Three combinations of fixed-interval schedules were studied, FI 0.25, FI 1.75 (minutes) or FI 1.00, FI 1.00, or FI 1.75, FI 0.25. The rate for each subject declined in the initial component as the value of the first fixed interval was increased. Experiment II was conducted to assess the role of the second fixed-interval schedule in the terminal component in determining the rate of responding in the initial component. For each chain schedule the rate of responding in the initial component was determined both with and without the second of the sequence of fixed intervals. In all three cases the rate of responding in the initial component decreased when the second fixed interval was removed. Increasing the first fixed interval in Exp. I had a greater effect on variable-interval performance than did the removal of the second fixed interval in Exp. II.     

Human operant performance: Sensitivity and pseudosensitivity to contingencies

Undergraduates' button presses occasionally produced points exchangeable for money. Left and right buttons were initially correlated with multiple random-ratio (RR) and random-interval (RI) components, respectively. During interruptions of the multiple schedule, students filled out sentence-completion guess sheets describing the schedules, and points were contingent upon the accuracy of guesses. To test for sensitivity to schedule contingencies, schedule components were repeatedly reversed between the two buttons. Pressing rates were consistently higher in ratio than in interval components even when feedback for guesses was discontinued, demonstrating sensitivity to the difference between ratio and interval contingencies. The question was whether this sensitivity was based directly on the contingencies or whether it was rule-governed. For two students, when multiple RR RI schedules were changed to multiple RI RI schedules, rates became low in both components of the multiple RI RI schedule; however, subsequent prevention of point deliveries for the first few responses in any component produced high rates in that component. For a third student, response rates became higher in the RI component that provided the lower rate of reinforcement. In each case, performance was inconsistent with typical effects of the respective schedules with nonhuman organisms; it was therefore plausible to conclude that the apparently contingency-governed performances were instead rule-governed.     

The schedule dependency of the signaled reinforcement effect

In Experiment 1, rats leverpressed for food reinforcement on either a variable ratio (VR) 30 schedule or a variable interval (VI) 15-s schedule. One group in each condition received a signal filling a 500-ms delay of reinforcement. This treatment enhanced rates on the VR schedule, and attenuated rates on the VI schedule, relative to the rate seen in an unsignaled control condition. In Experiment 2 there was no delay of reinforcement and the signal and food were presented simultaneously. Attenuated rates of responding were observed on VI schedules with a range of mean interval values (15 to 300 s). Experiment 3 used a range of VR schedules (10 to 150) with simultaneous presentations of signal and food. A signal-induced enhancement of response rate was found at all VR values. In Experiment 4, a signal elevated response rates on a tandem VI VR schedule, but depressed rates on a tandem VR VI schedule, compared to control conditions receiving unsignaled delayed reinforcement. These results are taken to show that the effect of a signal accompanying reinforcement depends upon the nature of the behavior that is reinforced during exposure to a given schedule.     

THE INFLUENCE OF BEHAVIOR PRECEDING A REINFORCED RESPONSE ON BEHAVIOR CHANGE IN THE CLASSROOM1

The influence of behavior that immediately precedes a reinforced target response on the effectiveness of a reinforcement contingency was examined in two experiments with mentally retarded children in a special-education classroom. Two reinforcement schedules were examined in each experiment. For each schedule, a prespecified period of attentive behavior served as the target response. The schedules differed in whether inattentive or attentive behavior was required immediately to precede the target response. These schedules were examined with one child in a simultaneous treatment design using praise as the reinforcer (Experiment I), and with two children in separate reversal designs using tokens as the reinforcer (Experiment II). While attentive behavior increased under each schedule, the increase was greater when attentive rather than inattentive behavior preceded the reinforced response. The results indicated that the effect of a contingency may be determined not only by the specific response reinforced but also by the behavior that immediately precedes that response.     

Effects of concurrent response-independent reinforcement on fixed-interval schedule performance

In three experiments, behavior maintained by fixed-interval schedules changed when response-independent reinforcement was delivered concurrently according to fixed- or variable-time schedules. In Experiment I, a pattern of positively accelerated responding during fixed interval was changed to a linear pattern when response-independent reinforcement occurred under a variable-time schedule. Overall response rates (total responses/total time) decreased as the frequency of response-independent reinforcement increased. Experiment II showed that the response-rate changes in the first experiment were controlled by the response-reinforcer relation, but the changes in patterns of responding were similar whether concurrently available reinforcement at varying times was response-dependent or response-independent. In the final experiment, the addition of response-independent reinforcement at fixed times to a fixed-interval schedule resulted in changes in both local and overall response rates and in the occurrence of positively accelerated responding between reinforcements. These results suggest that the temporal distribution of reinforcers determines response patterns and that both the response-reinforcement dependency and the schedule of reinforcement determine overall response rates during concurrently scheduled response-dependent and response-independent reinforcement.     

Effects of signaling on temporal control of behavior in response‐initiated fixed intervals

Behavior and events distributed in time can serve as markers that signal delays to future events. The majority of timing research has focused on how behavior changes as the time to some event, usually food availability, decreases. The primary objective of the two experiments presented here was to assess how behavior changes as time passes between two time markers when the first time marker was manipulated but the second, food delivery, was held constant. Pigeons were exposed to fixed‐interval, response‐initiated fixed‐interval, and signaled response‐initiated fixed‐interval 15‐ and 30‐s schedules of reinforcement. In Experiment 1, first‐response latencies were systematically shorter in the signaled response‐initiated schedules than response‐initiated schedules, suggesting that the first response was a more effective time marker when it was signaled. In Experiment 2, responding in no‐food (i.e. “peak”) trials indicated that timing accuracy was equivalent in the three schedule types. Compared to fixed interval schedules, timing precision was reduced in the signaled response‐initiated schedules and was lowest in response‐initiated schedules. Results from Experiments 1 and 2 coupled with previous research suggest that the overall “informativeness” of a time marker relative to other events and behaviors in the environment may determine its efficacy.     

Repeated measurements of reinforcement effects on gradients of stimulus control

Two experiments studied the effects of reinforcement schedules on generalization gradients. In Exp. 1, after pigeons' responding to a vertical line was reinforced, the pigeons were tested with 10 lines differing in orientation. Reconditioning and the redetermination of generalization gradients were repeated from 8 to 11 times with the schedule of reinforcement varied in the reconditioning phase. Stable gradients could not be observed because the successive reconditionings and tests steepened the gradients and reduced responding. Experiment 2 over-came these effects by first training the birds to respond to all of the stimuli. Then, brief periods of reinforced responding to the stimulus correlated with reinforcement alternated with the presentation of the 10 lines in extinction. The development of stimulus control was studied eight times with each bird, twice with each of four schedules of reinforcement. Gradients were similar each time a schedule was imposed; the degree of control by the stimulus correlated with reinforcement varied with particular schedules. Behavioral contrast occurred when periods of reinforcement and extinction alternated and was more durable with fixed-interval, variable-interval, and variable-ratio schedules than with fixed-ratio or differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedules.     

Food deliveries during the pause on fixed-interval schedules

Pigeons were trained on fixed-interval schedules of food delivery. In Experiments I and II, the fixed interval was initiated by the previous fixed-interval reinforcer; in Experiment III, the fixed interval was initiated by the first key peck following the preceding fixed-interval reinforcer (a chain fixed-ratio one, fixed-interval schedule). During the postreinforcement pause, variable-time schedules delivered food independent of any specific response. Rate of food delivery during the pause had only small effects on pause duration in Experiments I and II. In Experiment III, however, pause duration increased systematically with the rate of food delivery during the pause. These data suggest that the momentary proximity to reinforcement delivered via the fixed-interval schedule exerts potent control over pause termination. Additional analysis revealed that pause termination was unaffected by the intermittent delivery of food during the pause. Such data suggest that the temporal control by fixed-interval schedules is highly resistant to interference.     

A comparison of ratio and interval reinforcement schedules with comparable interreinforcement times

Pigeons were trained to peck keys on fixed-ratio and fixed-interval schedules of food reinforcement. Both schedules produced a pattern of behavior characterized as pause and run, but the relation of pausing to time between reinforcers differed for the two schedules even when mean time between reinforcers was the same. Pausing in the fixed ratio occupied less of the time between reinforcers for shorter interreinforcer times. For two of three birds, the relation was reversed at longer interreinforcer times. As an interreinforcer time elapsed, there was an increasing tendency to return to responding for the fixed interval, but a roughly constant tendency to return to responding for the fixed-ratio schedule. In Experiment 1 these observations were made for both single-reinforcement schedules and multiple schedules of fixed-ratio and fixed-interval reinforcement. In Experiment 2 the observations were extended to a comparison of fixed-ratio versus variable-interval reinforcement schedules, where the distribution of interreinforcement times in the variable interval approximated that for the fixed ratio.     

Competitive fixed-interval performance in humans

Two persons responded in the same session in separate cubicles, but under a single schedule of reinforcement. Each time reinforcement was programmed, only the first response to occur, that is, the response of only one of the subjects, was reinforced. “Competitive” behavior that developed under these conditions was examined in three experiments. In Experiment 1 subjects responded under fixed-interval (FI) 30-s, 60-s, and 90-s schedules of reinforcement. Under the competition condition, relative to baseline conditions, the response rates were higher and the pattern was “break-and-run.” In Experiment 2, subjects were exposed first to a conventional FI schedule and then to an FI competition schedule. Next, they were trained to respond under either a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) or fixed-ratio (FR) schedule, and finally, the initial FI competition condition was reinstated. In this second exposure to the FI competition procedure, DRL subjects responded at lower rates than were emitted during the initial exposure to that condition and FR subjects responded at higher rates. For all subjects, however, responding gradually returned to the break-and-run pattern that had occurred during the first FI competition condition. Experiment 3 assessed potential variables contributing to the effects of the competitive FI contingencies during Experiments 1 and 2. Subjects were exposed to FI schedules where (a) probability of reinforcement at completion of each fixed interval was varied, or (b) a limited hold was in effect for reinforcement. Only under the limited hold was responding similar to that observed in previous experiments.