Time reallocation in a multiresponse environment: Effects of restricting response classes

Four adult male rats were each placed for three hours daily into an apparatus that provided individual compartments for six separate location-defined responses. The available responses consisted of: (1) the opportunity to turn off room lighting, producing darkness; (2) the opportunity to view a female rat; (3) the opportunity to turn off white noise; (4) the opportunity to drink; (5) the opportunity to eat; and (6) "other," representing time in the hallway between compartments. Each subject underwent a series of conditions characterized as an A-B-A-C-A design. Manipulations consisted of the removal of a low-probability response (darkness) and of a high-probability response (escape from noise) in a counter-balanced manner across subjects. The dependent measure for all subjects was the percentage of total session time spent in each compartment. Four predictive rules concerning the redistribution of behavior after response restriction were tested, including the constant-ratio rule, equal time redistribution, the most probable alternative, and the sequential-dependency rule. The results indicate no support for any of the four predictive rules and suggest that empirical assessment of restriction effects is necessary in reinforcement studies involving temporally extended responses.     

FUNCTIONAL COMMUNICATION TRAINING WITH AND WITHOUT EXTINCTION AND PUNISHMENT

Functional communication training has been reported to be a promising treatment for severe behavior problems. In this study, functional communication training alone and combined with extinction and/or punishment was evaluated for 4 clients with severe retardation, behavior problems, and communication deficits. The participants were inpatients on a hospital unit for treatment of severe behavior disorders. They received individualized interventions based on functional assessment that included reinforcement of a communication response with the same function as their destructive behavior. Results showed that for some patients, functional communication training was not sufficient to produce clinically significant reductions in destructive behavior, and the combination of training plus punishment produced the largest and most consistent reductions.     

An integrated model for guiding the selection of treatment components for problem behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement

We evaluated the usefulness of 2 assessments to guide treatment selection for individuals whose prior functional analysis indicated that automatic reinforcement maintained their problem behavior. In the 1st assessment, we compared levels of problem behavior during a noncontingent play condition and an alone or ignore condition. In the 2nd, we assessed participants’ relative preferences for automatic reinforcement and social reinforcers in a concurrent‐operants arrangement. We used the results of these 2 assessments to assign 5 participants to a treatment based on noncontingent access to social reinforcers or to a treatment based on differential access to social reinforcers. We conducted monthly probes with the participants over 10 to 12 months to evaluate the effects of the treatment procedures. All participants showed reductions in problem behavior over this period.     

THE USE OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT IN THE TREATMENT OF ESCAPE-MAINTAINED DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR

We identified 3 clients whose destructive behavior was sensitive to negative reinforcement (break from tasks) and positive reinforcement (access to tangible items, attention, or both). In an instructional context, we then evaluated the effects of reinforcing compliance with one, two, or all of these consequences (a break, tangible items, attention) when destructive behavior produced a break and when it did not (escape extinction). For 2 clients, destructive behavior decreased and compliance increased when compliance produced access to tangible items, even though destructive behavior resulted in a break. For 1 client, extinction was necessary to reduce destructive behavior and to increase compliance. Subsequently, when the schedule of reinforcement for compliance was faded for all clients, destructive behavior was lower and fading proceeded more rapidly when compliance produced multiple functional reinforcers (i.e., a break plus tangible items or attention) and destructive behavior was on extinction. The results are discussed in terms of the effects of relative reinforcement value and extinction on concurrent operants.     

EVALUATION OF A BRIEF STIMULUS PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT

We evaluated the utility of a brief (5-min) stimulus preference assessment for individuals with developmental disabilities. Participants had noncontingent (free) access to an array of stimuli and could interact with any of the stimuli at any time. Stimuli were never withdrawn or withheld from the participants during a 5-min session. In Experiment 1, the brief preference assessment was conducted for 10 participants to identify differentially preferred stimuli, and reinforcer assessments were conducted to test the reinforcing efficacy of those stimuli identified as highly preferred. In Experiment 2, a comparison was conducted between the brief preference assessment and a commonly used paired-stimulus preference assessment. Collectively, results demonstrated that the brief preference assessment identified stimuli that functioned as reinforcers for a simple operant response, identified preferred stimuli that were differentially effective as reinforcers compared to nonpreferred stimuli, was associated with fewer problem behaviors, and required less time to complete than a commonly used paired-stimulus preference assessment.     

AN EVALUATION OF THE INTERACTION BETWEEN QUALITY OF ATTENTION AND NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT WITH CHILDREN WHO DISPLAY ESCAPE‐MAINTAINED PROBLEM BEHAVIOR

The choice‐making behavior of 2 typically developing children who engaged in problem behavior maintained by negative reinforcement was evaluated within a concurrent‐operants assessment that varied the quality of attention across free‐play and demand conditions. The results demonstrated that it was possible to bias responding towards academic demands for both participants by providing high‐quality attention, despite the continuous availability of negative reinforcement. The current study extended brief clinical methods with typically developing children and demonstrated how different qualities of attention provided across concurrent schedules could bias responding.     

ON THE RELATIVE REINFORCING EFFECTS OF CHOICE AND DIFFERENTIAL CONSEQUENCES

Research on the reinforcing effects of providing choice-making opportunities to individuals with developmental disabilities (i.e., allowing them to choose reinforcers or tasks) has produced inconsistent results, perhaps because the mechanisms underlying such effects remain unclear. Choice may produce a reinforcement effect because it is correlated with differential consequences (i.e., choice may increase one's access to higher preference stimuli), or it may have reinforcement value independent of (or in addition to) the chosen stimulus. In Experiment 1, we used a concurrent-operants arrangement to assess preference for a choice condition (in which participants selected one of two available reinforcers) relative to a no-choice condition (in which the therapist selected the same reinforcers on a yoked schedule). All 3 participants preferred the choice option. In Experiment 2, we altered the schedules so that the participant selected one of two lower preference reinforcers in the choice condition, whereas the therapist selected a higher preference stimulus for the participant either half or all of the time in the no-choice condition. Participants typically allowed the therapist to select reinforcers for them (i.e., they allocated responding to the no-choice condition) when it resulted in greater access to higher preference stimuli.     

ASSESSMENT OF PREFERENCE FOR VARIED VERSUS CONSTANT REINFORCERS

One method that has been demonstrated to improve the effectiveness of reinforcement is stimulus (reinforcer) variation (Egel, 1980). Egel found that bar pressing increased and responding occurred more rapidly during varied reinforcement than during constant reinforcement when identical stimuli were used across phases for 10 individuals with autism. The purpose of the current investigation was to assess the preferences of 7 individuals for varied presentation of slightly lower quality stimuli relative to constant access to the highest quality stimulus. Varied presentation was preferred over constant reinforcer presentation with 4 participants, and the opposite was true for 2 participants. One participant did not demonstrate a preference. These results suggest that stimulus variation may allow less preferred reinforcers to compete effectively with a more highly preferred reinforcer for some individuals.     

EVALUATION OF CLIENT PREFERENCE FOR FUNCTION-BASED TREATMENT PACKAGES

Functional communication training (FCT) and noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) are commonly prescribed treatments that are based on the results of a functional analysis. Both treatments involve delivery of the reinforcer that is responsible for the maintenance of destructive behavior. One major difference between the two treatment procedures is that client responding determines reinforcement delivery with FCT (e.g., reinforcement of communication is delivered on a fixed-ratio 1 schedule) but not with NCR (e.g., reinforcement is delivered on a fixed-time 30-s schedule). In the current investigation, FCT and NCR were equally effective in reducing 2 participants' destructive behavior that was sensitive to attention as reinforcement. After the treatment analysis, the participants' relative preference for each treatment was evaluated using a modified concurrent-chains procedure. Both participants demonstrated a preference for the FCT procedure. The results are discussed in terms of treatment efficacy and preference for control over when reinforcement is delivered. In addition, a method is demonstrated in which clients with developmental disabilities can participate in selecting treatments that are designed to reduce their destructive behavior.