Expert answer:RE: Discussion Question
Answer & Explanation:Question A: ERR:
Reinforcer and Rate Stimulus Control in Discrimination Role Reversal (200 word minimum
with 1 peer reviewed reference) ERR_ Reinforcement and Stimulus Control.pdf Question B: Laboratory Comparison of two variations (200 word minimum with 1 peer reviewed reference) ERR_Labatory Comparison of two variations.pdf Question C: ERR: Teaching of Psychology (200 word minimum with 1 peer reviewed reference) ERR_Teaching of Psychology-1991-Hodge-239-41.pdf Question D: Classical and Operant Conditioning (Video) (200 word minimum with 1 peer reviewed reference) http://digital.films.com/PortalViewVideo.aspx?xtid=6541&loid=12345Question E: Behavior Change Strategies (video) (200 word minimum with 1 peer reviewed reference) Segment URL: http://digital.films.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?aid=7967&xtid=11396&loid=35227Title URL: http://digital.films.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?aid=7967&xtid=11396Question F: Explain how to teach a skill using discrimination. (200 word minimum with 1 peer reviewed reference) Question G: Explain the role of satiation and deprivation in behavior patterns. (200 word minimum with 1 peer reviewed reference) Question H: ERR: Behavior Modification in the Home (200 word minimum with 1 peer reviewed reference) ERR_Behavior Modification in the Home.pdf
err__reinforcement_and_stimulus_control.pdf
err_labatory_comparison_of_two_variations.pdf
err_teaching_of_psychology_1991_hodge_239_41.pdf
err_behavior_modification_in_the_home.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS
2014, 47, 314–324
NUMBER
2 (SUMMER)
A LABORATORY COMPARISON OF TWO VARIATIONS OF
DIFFERENTIAL-REINFORCEMENT-OF-LOW-RATE PROCEDURES
JOSHUA JESSEL
AND JOHN
C. BORRERO
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, BALTIMORE COUNTY
We compared 2 variations of differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) procedures: spacedresponding DRL, in which a reinforcer was delivered contingent on each response if a specified
interval had passed since the last response, and full-session DRL, in which a reinforcer was presented
at the end of an interval if the response rate was below criterion within the specified interval. We used
a human-operant procedure and analyzed within-session responding to assess any similarities or
differences between procedures. Data revealed a positive contingency between responding and
reinforcement under the spaced-responding DRL schedule and a negative contingency under the
full-session DRL schedule. Furthermore, 60% of the participants discontinued responding by the
last full-session DRL session. Implications for the appropriate procedural and taxonomical usage of
both DRL schedules are discussed.
Key words: differential reinforcement of low rates, differential reinforcement of other behavior,
human operant, interresponse time, translational research
Differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL)
schedules are temporally based reinforcement
schedules that arrange the delivery of reinforcers
contingent on reduced rates of responding
(Ferster & Skinner, 1957). Two commonly
conducted iterations of DRL schedules differ
based on the unit of analysis; one programs a
contingent relation between each response,
whereas the other programs a contingent relation
between an overall count within a particular time
frame that can be intervals, sessions, or days
(Deitz & Repp, 1973).
In the first DRL variation, a response produces
a reinforcer only after a specified time of no
This study was conducted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the master’s degree of the first author at the
University of Maryland, Baltimore County. We thank Iser
G. DeLeon and SungWoo Kahng for their insightful
contributions to earlier versions of this manuscript. Joshua
Jessel is now affiliated with Western New England
University. Preparation of this article was supported by
Grant RO1HD049753 from the Eunice K. Shriver National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development
(NICHD). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the
authors and do not represent the official views of NICHD.
Address correspondence to J. C. Borrero, Department of
Psychology, University of Maryland, Baltimore County,
1000 Hilltop Road, Baltimore, Maryland 21250 (e-mail:
jborrero@umbc.edu).
doi: 10.1002/jaba.114
responding has elapsed (Catania, 2013). The
interval between each response is known as the
interresponse time (IRT), and this schedule is
sometimes called an IRT > t arrangement because
the time between responses (IRT) must be greater
than the programmed interval (t) to produce a
reinforcer. These temporally sensitive schedules
result in the subsequent reinforcement of both the
relative IRT and response, respectively, characterizing patterns of behavior that are referred to as
spaced responding. This schedule has been aptly
named a spaced-responding DRL in the applied
literature (Deitz, 1977).
The second DRL variation defines a contingency between responding and a reinforcer
following the elapse of a predetermined interval
as long as the overall rate within that interval is
below a predetermined criterion (Catania, 2013).
In some cases, the absence of responding is
considered an acceptable dimension, and the
characteristic features of maintaining low rates
during the DRL schedule are ignored (e.g., Bird,
Hepburn, Rhodes, & Moniz, 1991; Hagopian,
Kuhn, & Strother, 2009; Shaw & Simms, 2009;
Turner, Green, & Braunling-McMorrow, 1990).
For example, Deitz and Repp (1973) specifically
termed this variation a full-session DRL and arranged
criteria whereby reinforcers were presented, not
314
VARIATIONS OF DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT
contingent on a response, but at the end of the
interval if the target behavior (i.e., talking out
during class without permission) occurred at a
rate less than a specified criterion. This procedure
inherently permitted reinforcer delivery given no
responding. Because zero responding is sufficient to
produce reinforcer delivery, Deitz and Repp’s
example of a full-session DRL may have more in
common with a differential-reinforcement-of-otherbehavior (DRO) schedule in that (a) reinforcers are
presented on an interval basis, (b) there is only an
indirect relation between reinforcer deliveries and
IRTs, and (c) there is a possible negative contingency
between reinforcer presentation and the target
response. The combined schedule could instead
be described as an alternative DRO DRL schedule
(Ferster & Skinner, 1957). This description incorporates the two alternative contingencies available
for contacting reinforcement, in that the organism
can either not respond at all or respond x or fewer
times. To draw attention to this detail may seem
trivial, but the effects on behavior could be as
substantial. Specifically, the schedule arrangement
supports both low-rate and zero responding.
Therefore, the spaced-responding DRL and
full-session DRL might establish disparate
patterns of responding and might be properly
used in different contexts. Of these two methods
of programming DRL schedules, the majority
of basic research has been conducted using
spaced-responding DRL schedules that maintain responding. However, in application, the
spaced-responding DRL is used infrequently
and is supplanted by the full-session DRL that
might actually be more likely to eliminate
responding. In other words, basic and applied
research that involves DRL arrangements has
focused on different contingencies that may
promote very different response patterns. The
explanation for this difference may be elucidated
when considering why applied researchers
would select a DRL arrangement as a means
of clinical intervention.
Spaced-responding DRL schedules have often
been implemented to reduce response forms that
315
are acceptable or valued, but only when the
responses occur at a low to moderate rate. These
include responses such as hand raising in
classroom settings (Austin & Bevan, 2011) and
independent eating or drinking during mealtimes
(Anglesea, Hoch, & Taylor, 2008; Lennox,
Miltenberger, & Donnelly, 1987; Wright &
Vollmer, 2002). Thus, the goal is to reduce the
frequency of the target response but not to
completely extinguish responding. The spacedresponding DRL schedule lends itself to cases for
which high rates of the target behavior could be
hazardous (e.g., rapid eating could lead to an
increased chance of choking) but complete
elimination of the response would alternatively
lead to dangerous complications (e.g., starvation).
In contrast, full-session DRL schedules, or the
alternative DRL DRO schedules, have been
implemented in cases in which the target behavior
is inappropriate and reduced rates are acceptable
but complete elimination is ideal. Common
examples of these behaviors include talking out
during class without permission (Deitz & Repp,
1973) or engaging in stereotypy (Singh, Dawson,
& Manning, 1981). The DRL component
accounts for the permissible (tolerable) rate of
inappropriate behavior to occur, whereas the
alternative DRO component schedules reinforcement during intervals of no responding.
Austin and Bevan (2011) used an amalgamation of procedures from both the spacedresponding and full-session DRL schedules to
decrease requests for help by three typically
developing elementary school students. The
authors reported considerable decreases in requests during the treatment component. However, some features of the results warrant
consideration. Although the ability to eliminate
the target response completely has often been
regarded as a strength of the DRO schedule, the
target response (requests for help) selected for this
study would likely not fall under that category.
The full-session DRL schedule has often been
preferred over the spaced-responding DRL
schedule because of the relative simplicity of
316
JOSHUA JESSEL and JOHN C. BORRERO
the nonresetting interval for teachers in classroom
settings (Deitz, 1977; Deitz & Repp, 1973);
however, this may not be clinically appropriate
when considering the possibility of extinguishing
an appropriate classroom response.
The purpose of the current study was to
compare the effects of the spaced-responding
DRL schedule and the full-session DRL schedule
in a preliminary human-operant investigation
using college students as participants. A DRObased schedule was specifically targeted because of
the frequency with which DRO procedures are
represented in the research literature related to
reducing problem behavior (Kahng, Iwata, &
Lewin, 2002). The study was designed to provide
laboratory (translational) evidence for possible
similarities or differences between the underlying
mechanisms of the procedures and whether or not
the change in a procedural taxonomy is warranted.
That is, if the full-session DRL schedule results in
maintained responding similar to that of the
spaced-responding DRL, then there would be
little evidence to suggest change, because the
implications for application will not differ for
practitioners and applied researchers.
METHOD
Participants
Sixteen university students (seven women,
nine men), with an age range of 18 to 29 years
old, were recruited for participation. All participants were sufficiently proficient in the manipulation of a computer mouse and had experience
using computers. Three participants served as
pilots during the initial stages of program
development. Two of the remaining 13 participants engaged in similar response rates during
the variable-ratio (VR) and extinction conditions, and one participant refused to wear the
headphones and could not hear when points
were being delivered. Therefore, 10 data sets
from the original 16 participants were produced;
one participant (P-8) completed two sessions.
(The reinforcement schedules and parameters for
each participant can be obtained from the
Supporting Information on the Wiley Online
Library.)
Apparatus and Settings
Participants were situated in a room (3 m by
3 m) with a desk (with laptop computer) and
chair. The participant was asked to be seated
while the instructions were read to him or her.
The participant was asked to read along with the
instructions on the computer screen, and to begin
the session when he or she was ready. The
instructions included the following statement:
Thank you for your participation in this
study. Your goal is to earn as many points as
possible before time is up. There is a
possibility of earning up to $50 (with other
monetary rewards for second and third place).
There are different ways to earn points.
Clicking on the colored buttons in different
patterns could add to your earnings, not affect
your earnings, or subtract from your earnings.
All of your earnings will be visible throughout
the experiment at the top of the screen, and a
tone will sound with each distribution. Your
time here will approximate 1 hour with a
minute break every 5 minutes. You are free to
leave at any point during this study; however,
you will only be eligible to win the monetary
prizes on completion. Remember, you are
trying to beat other participants so do your
best! Click the START button when you are
ready and good luck!
The program was created using Microsoft
Visual Basic and consisted of 24 colored squares
(100 by 100 pixels) in the center of the screen
with a text bar at the center top that displayed
real-time point accumulation. The colors of the
squares differed depending on the programmed
reinforcement schedule. The squares were stationary, and each click on a square made the
square disappear. All the squares that were clicked
regenerated after 6 s. Therefore all 24 squares
were visible every 6 s, and at no time was the
participant left without any squares to click.
VARIATIONS OF DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT
Design and Response Measurement
The computer program automatically recorded mouse clicks. Every 1 s, a preset automated timer recorded the current frequency of clicks
and points to a notepad file. Clicks were recorded
if they occurred on the squares. All other clicks on
the gray background produced no differential
consequences and were not recorded. The
primary dependent variable was rate of mouse
clicks expressed as responses per second.
ABA(C þ D) reversal designs were conducted
to assess possible effects between baseline and the
variations of the differential-reinforcement conditions. The initial reinforcer assessment (ABA)
consisted of three VR (A) blocks, followed by
three blocks of extinction (B), and a return to the
VR blocks. The imbedded multielement (C þ D)
design was implemented within treatment conditions to assess possible differentiating results of
the DRL IRT (C) and the DRO rate (D). The
design was extended to an ABA(C þ D)ACAD
for the one participant who opted to participate
for two sessions. However, all were given the
opportunity to participate for both sessions.
Procedure
Sessions lasted a minimum of 60 min and
consisted of three or more sequential 5-min
blocks, for a total of 12 to 15 blocks each session.
An optional 1-min break followed each block,
and a 5-min break followed every six blocks.
Points were delivered for mouse clicks based on
the relevant schedule of reinforcement in place.
After completion of the study, monetary rewards
of $50, $40, and $10 were awarded to the
participants who earned the most, second-most,
and third-most amount of points, respectively.
The initial nine blocks of each session
consisted of a reinforcer assessment. The reinforcer assessment was comprised of three blocks
of alternating extinction and VR schedules in an
ABA reversal design. The reinforcer assessment
was conducted to ensure that point delivery
increased responding.
317
Participants could not earn points during the
extinction phase. This arrangement included
blue squares that did not disappear when clicked
(the squares disappeared contingent on each click
during the reinforcement phases). We elected not
to remove squares contingent on clicks during
extinction, because three pilot participants
continued to click on the squares during sessions
in which points were never delivered.
During the VR phase, points were presented
on a VR 15 ( 5) schedule of reinforcement. The
scheduled mean number of responses was
selected based on pilot data that indicated that
responding would persist under a VR 15 ( 5).
The algorithm used to generate the VR schedule
was based on that provided by Dixon and MacLin
(2003). This schedule was correlated with green
squares. The VR schedule constituted the
reinforcement condition in the reinforcer assessment and the baseline condition in the comparative differential reinforcement assessment.
During the spaced-responding DRL phase,
points were presented contingent on the first
instance of a mouse click that followed the
completion of a preset interval in which no
responding occurred. The initial IRT interval was
calculated as twice the mean IRT interval during
the last VR phase. If clicks occurred at any point
before the interval elapsed, the automated timer
reset to the original IRT and no points were
delivered. Points were not presented following
the interval if no response occurred and were
withheld, without restarting the timer, until the
target response was emitted. This schedule was
correlated with yellow squares.
Both the spaced-responding DRL IRT and the
full-session DRL interval were calculated from
responding during the VR phase. During the fullsession DRL phase, the interval duration was
calculated as four times the average IRT during
the VR phase. Tolerance for the full-session DRL
was defined as the maximum frequency of
responding that could occur without resetting
the reinforcer-delivery interval. Tolerance was
calculated as half the mean response rate of the
318
JOSHUA JESSEL and JOHN C. BORRERO
target response during the VR condition. For
example, if the mean IRT during the VR phase
was 2 s, the spaced-responding DRL would be
calculated as 4 s (i.e., IRT > 4 s), the full-session
DRL interval would be set as 8 s, and tolerance
would be set as one response. Therefore, the
scheduled probability of reinforcer delivery
during the full-session DRL sessions remained
proportional to the spaced-responding DRL
condition. Although this method resulted in an
interval substantially longer than DRO intervals
typically conducted in applied contexts (see
Vollmer & Iwata, 1992), without this modification comparative results between the spacedresponding DRL and full-session DRL procedures would not be mutually interpretable.
Decreased response rates during the spacedresponding DRL are a function of increased IRTs
and longer intervals, relative to some baseline
response rate. On the other hand, short intervals
are preferred during DRO arrangements to
reduce the negative side effects of extinction
and increase contact with the scheduled reinforcement. Thus, we elected to increase the fullsession DRL interval rather than decrease the
spaced-responding IRT because decreases in
spaced-responding DRL durations relative to a
full-session DRL interval would have contraindicative or no effects on responding that was
already occurring slower than the imposed rate.
For example, if a participant is already responding
at a pace of one response every 10 s, a minimum
IRT of 5 s would not likely affect behavior. In
addition, in comparison to the full-session DRL
intervals commonly conducted in applied settings, the currently calculated intervals were
relatively small. The intervals from Dietz and
Repp (1973) consisted of entire class periods of
50 min. The negative effects often associated with
long intervals may be avoided by the addition of
tolerance.
During the full-session DRL condition, points
were delivered following the elapse of the interval,
whether or not any clicks occurred at any time
during the session block. However, if the
frequency of clicks exceeded that of the set
tolerance within the interval, points were not
delivered and the interval was restarted immediately after the violation of tolerance. This
condition was correlated with red squares.
Data Analysis
Data from a cumulative record were analyzed
across 300 1-s bins per session to determine
comparative optimal and allowable response rates
during the last sessions of the spaced-responding
DRL and full-session DRL conditions, respectively. The optimal response rate refers to the rate
of responding during the spaced-responding
DRL condition in which the most reinforcers
can be produced within the allotted session time.
The allowable response rate refers to the rate of
responding during the full-session DRL condition in which all reinforcers can be delivered
within the allotted session time without penalty
of point loss. The slope of the cumulative data
during the last session of each condition (i.e., VR,
spaced-responding DRL, full-session DRL) was
calculated by taking the response frequency at
10 s (Y1), subtracting it from the response
frequency at 290 s (Y2), and dividing the
difference by 280 (X2–X1).
A contingency strength analysis (Luczynski &
Hanley, 2009, 2010) was conducted to provide a
quantifiable value of the contingent relations
during the spaced-responding DRL phase and
the full-session DRL phase. The contingency
value was defined as the difference of two
disparate conditional probabilities: response
conditional probability and point conditional
probability. A positive contingency value from
the contingency strength analysis supports a
correlation between a response and a reinforcer;
the higher the positive value the stronger the
correlation. T …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades