An enriched teaching program for reducing resistance and indices of unhappiness among individuals with profound multiple disabilities

We evaluated an enriched teaching program for reducing resistance and indices of unhappiness displayed by 3 individuals with profound multiple disabilities during teaching sessions. The program involved presentation of preferred activities before, during, and after each teaching session, discontinuation of identified nonpreferred activities, and a brief break and preferred activity following occurrence of resistance. Implementation of the enriched teaching program was accompanied by reductions in resistance and indices of unhappiness for each participant. Results also indicated no negative impact of the program on participant performance of the teaching steps or staff teaching proficiency. Staff questionnaire responses provided a degree of social validation for the observed changes in that staff reported the participants liked the enriched teaching program more than the traditional teaching process. Directions for future research discussed include identifying critical aspects of the overall program and the potential relation between teaching proficiency and the program's enrichment effectiveness.     

Interaction of reinforcement schedules, a behavioral prosthesis, and work-related behavior in adults with mental retardation

The effects of variable-interval (VI) and fixed-ratio (FR) schedules of reinforcement for work-related behavior and an organizer for the work materials (behavioral prosthesis) were evaluated with 3 adults with severe or profound mental retardation. The participants had been recommended for study because of high rates of off-task and aberrant behavior in their daily vocational training programs. For 2 participants, VI and FR schedules resulted in the same outcome: more aberrant behavior than on-task and off-task behavior combined. The FR schedule nearly eliminated emission of aberrant and off-task behavior by the 3rd participant. Combining the behavioral prosthesis with FR reinforcement (FR+O) increased the proportion of time spent in on-task behavior by all participants under certain FR schedule parameters. Second-by-second analyses of the observation records revealed that FR schedules reduced off-task and aberrant behavior during work sequences (i.e., ratio runs), and FR+O led to a further reduction of these behaviors during postreinforcement pauses. Overall, the results show how organizer and schedule parameters can be adjusted to produce an optimized balance between productivity and reinforcement while undesirable behavior is minimized.     

Openness/Intellect and Susceptibility to Pseudo‐Profound Bullshit: A Replication and Extension

‘Pseudo‐profound bullshit’ (PPBS) is a class of meaningless statements designed to appear profound. Profundity ratings for PPBS have been found to be negatively related to analytical thinking and positively related to epistemically suspect beliefs (e.g. belief in the paranormal). Conceptually similar traits within the Openness/Intellect (O/I) domain form a simplex, whereby traits are arranged along a single dimension from intelligence to apophenia (i.e. observing patterns or causal connections were none exist). Across two studies (total N = 297), we attempted to replicate the O/I simplex and determine how it relates to perceiving PPBS as profound. Participants completed questionnaires measuring traits from the O/I simplex and provided profundity ratings for PPBS. Profundity ratings of PPBS tended to correlate negatively with intelligence and positively with apophenia. The association with intelligence generally reflected a greater ability to discriminate the profound from the pseudo‐profound, whereas the association with apophenia reflected poorer discrimination in Study 1, with less conclusive results in Study 2. In both studies, the O/I simplex was closely replicated. The results suggest a link between the O/I domain and perceiving PPBS as profound and tentatively support the theory that intelligence may protect against apophenia. © 2018 European Association of Personality Psychology