A transfer of self-discrimination response functions through equivalence relations

The present study tested the idea that human self-discrimination response functions may transfer through equivalence relations. Four subjects were trained in six symbolic matching-to-sample tasks (if see A1, choose B1; A1-C1, A2-B2, A2-C2, A3-B3, A3-C3) and were then tested for the formation of three equivalence relations (B1-C1, B2-C2, B3-C3). Two of the B stimuli (B1 and B2) were then used to train two different self-discrimination responses using either detailed instructions (Subjects 1 to 3) or minimal instructions (Subject 4) on two complex schedules of reinforcement (i.e., subjects were trained to pick the B1 stimulus if they had not emitted a response, and to pick the B2 stimulus if they had emitted one or more responses on the previous schedule). All 4 subjects showed the predicted transfer of self-discrimination response functions through equivalence relations (i.e., no response on the schedule, pick C1; one or more responses on the schedule, pick C2). Subjects also demonstrated this transfer when they were required to discriminate their schedule performance before exposure to the schedule (i.e., “what I intend to do”). Four control subjects were also used in the study. Two of these (Subjects 5 and 6) were not exposed to any form of matching-to-sample training and testing (nonequivalence controls). The 2 remaining subjects (7 and 8) were exposed to matching-to-sample training and testing that incorporated stimuli not used during the transfer test; C1 and C2 were replaced by N1 and N2 during the matching-to-sample training and testing, but C1 and C2 were used for the transfer tests (equivalence controls). All 4 subjects failed to produce the self-discrimination transfer performances observed with the experimental subjects.     

DEVELOPING GENERALIZED BEHAVIOR-MODIFICATION SKILLS IN HIGH-SCHOOL STUDENTS WORKING WITH RETARDED CHILDREN1

Seven high-school trainees each conducted training sessions with two profoundly retarded children. Each trainee was asked to teach one child to follow the instruction “Bring ball” and the other child to follow the instructions “Sit down” and “Come here”. During baseline sessions, before the trainees had been instructed in behavior-modification techniques, no trainee successfully taught either child to follow the instructions. After differing numbers of baseline sessions, trainees were exposed to training procedures designed to teach them to teach one child to follow the instruction “Bring ball”. The training procedures consisted of videotaped modelling, rehearsal, and corrective feedback and praise. Following the training procedures, four of the seven trainees successfully taught their child to follow the instruction “Bring ball”. Further, all trainees were able to teach their other children to follow the instructions “Sit down” and “Come here”, even though they had received no modelling, rehearsal, or feedback on how to teach the children to follow these instructions. The ability of the trainees to teach new behaviors to different children indicates the development of generalized skills in behavior modification.     

The marked item technique: a practical procedure for litter control

Unobtrusively marked items of litter were placed among existing trash on the grounds of a federal youth correctional facility. Inmates voluntarily collected trash and deposited it at a central location, where they were given money or special privileges for each piece of marked litter found. A multiple-baseline design with litter counts in three areas revealed successive reductions of 55%, 88%, and 71% after 17, 22, and 36 days of baseline, respectively. A fourth area served as a baseline-only control, and revealed no systematic changes. Advantages of the procedure over previously devised techniques were discussed and applications in other areas of pollution control suggested.     

FUNCTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS IN THE USE OF PROCEDURAL TIMEOUT AND AN EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE1

Two single-subject experiments were conducted with students in special preschool classes. In Experiment I, the subject's disruptive, appropriate, and inappropriate play behaviors were measured as a function of three independent variables: reinforcement, a typical timeout procedure, and regularly paced teacher instructions. In an ABA reversal within a multiple baseline across two teachers, all three independent variables comprised the A conditions and procedural timeout was omitted in B. Experiment II examined a second subject's appropriate and inappropriate eating as a function of the same three variables. Two teachers conducted baseline and paced instruction-plus-reinforcement conditions in multiple baseline across teachers. Subsequently, one teacher performed a series of reversals and replications with various combinations of a typical timeout procedure and reinforcement mixed with paced instructions. The results of both experiments suggest that timeout did not produce response decrement in a punishment paradigm, but rather produced response increment in a negative reinforcement paradigm. These results prevailed, even though a reinforcer was operating in the environment before introducing timeout. Paced instructions (delivering instructions to the child at a set pace regardless of the child's behavior) appears to be an alternative when timeout is not effective and, in conjunction with reinforcement, was demonstrated to reduce inappropriate behavior to near zero.     

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF A PROGRAM FOR TRAINING HIGH AND LOW PREFERENCE PEERS TO MODIFY DISRUPTIVE CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR1

Although considerable evidence has accumulated regarding the effectivenes of peers as behavior managers, little attention has been directed toward the analysis of components of training programs. Also, it is not known whether high and low preference peers have different reinforcing effects. In this study, a two-phase peer training program was introduced to five high preference and five low preference peer managers. The Managers were assigned one to each of 10 grade-four elementary pupils with high rates of disruptive behavior. Peer Training I was composed of instructions to monitor and reinforce target subject behavior on a time-sample schedule, to record this reinforcement, and to ignore inappropriate behavior in target subjects. Peer Training II introduced, in addition, backup reinforcement for the monitoring behavior of managers. Measures were taken of target subject behavior, antecedent and consequent attention from managers and other peers, monitoring behavior of managers, teacher behavior, and preference ratings of peer managers by target subjects. Significant improvements in target subject behavior occurred following Peer Training I and further improvements occurred following Peer Training II. These changes were paralleled by decreases in the frequency of antecedent and consequent manager attention to problem behaviors, and improvements in the number and accuracy of monitoring checks. Recorded reductions in teacher attention to individual children and to target subjects were not statistically significant. Posttest preference scores improved significantly over pretest scores for low preference managers, while remaining high for high preference managers.     

ACQUISITION AND GENERALIZATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH COMPLEX FIVE-COMPONENT INSTRUCTIONS1

A 7-yr-old bilingual boy of normal intelligence, judged by his school to be deficient in carrying out complex requests, was trained to comply with five-component instructions, e.g., “Give me/the chip/behind/the block/on blue”. Three interchangeable words or phrases were used for each component. Training proceeded in stages. First, the child was trained to identify all individual objects and actions; then to carry out requests involving only the first component, then the first two, then three, etc. On every trial, the visual setting permitted every possible response in the set. A test for generalization to nonreinforced instructions was given at each stage by giving no feedback for all instructions that included one preselected phrase. The phrase selected at each stage was one of the three that was introduced at that stage. As a further test for generalization, nonreinforced instructions were also given that included one additional component: the next to be trained (Probes Ahead). As a test for generalization across settings and instructions, several five-component instructions were presented each session in an unused classroom. These instructions used phrases, most of which were different from those being trained, and which referred to familiar classroom objects. Results showed: acquisition occurred for each stage of training, including the full five-component instruction; almost complete generalization of responding occurred to the subset of nonreinforced instructions; little or no generalization occurred to the Probes Ahead, where an additional untrained component was included; and little or no generalization was seen to the five-component classroom instructions, until training began on the five-component instructions in the training sessions. Performance was also examined for each component. Results showed that when a new component was introduced, correct performance to previously trained components declined, and was little if any superior to performance on the new component. In summary, transfer was found to untrained sentences of the same form as those being trained, even in another setting, where most of the components were different; but poor transfer was found to more complex sentences, and performance declined for previously trained components during training of a more complex sentence. Some features of the training procedure that may have affected the degree and form of transfer were discussed: the necessity for prior training in an appropriate response to the component phrases, the importance of intermixing of reinforced and nonreinforced trials, and the effects of the abruptness with which more complex sentence forms were introduced.     

Uninstructed human responding: sensitivity to ratio and interval contingencies

College students' presses on a telegraph key were occasionally reinforced by light onsets in the presence of which button presses (consummatory responses) produced points later exchangeable for money. One student's key presses were reinforced according to a variable-ratio schedule; key presses of another student in a separate room were reinforced according to a variable-interval schedule yoked to the interreinforcement intervals produced by the first student. Instructions described the operation of the reinforcement button, but did not mention the telegraph key; instead, key pressing was established by shaping. Performances were comparable to those of infrahuman organisms: variable-ratio key-pressing rates were higher than yoked variable-interval rates. With some yoked pairs, schedule effects occurred so rapidly that rate reversals produced by schedule reversals were demonstrable within one session. But sensitivity to these contingencies was not reliably obtained with other pairs for whom an experimenter demonstrated key pressing or for whom the reinforcer included automatic point deliveries instead of points produced by button presses. A second experiment with uninstructed responding demonstrated sensitivity to fixed-interval contingencies. These findings clarify prior failures to demonstrate human sensitivity to schedule contingencies: human responding is maximally sensitive to these contingencies when instructions are minimized and the reinforcer requires a consummatory response.