5- Reinforcement history: implications for a clinical treatment and experimental design Flashcards Preview

BEHP5018 Advanced topics in behavior analysis > 5- Reinforcement history: implications for a clinical treatment and experimental design > Flashcards

Flashcards in 5- Reinforcement history: implications for a clinical treatment and experimental design Deck (99)
Loading flashcards...
1

The influence of Past Events on current behavior.

Behavior that persists in particular contexts during EXTINCTION

Responding that occurs at unnecessarily high or low rates to obtain reinforcement

Rule-governed bx That doesn’t match current contingencies

Reinforcement history

2

Your clients and research participants will have existing reinforcement histories.

These histories May influence responding during your assessments and interventions, resulting in:

Responding in ways that you did not predict

Unsuccessful treatment attempts

Less rapid changes in responding than predicted

3

Reinforcement history influences what we do. (We don’t start with a blank slate every day)

A central tenet of behavior analysis

4

Can be EXACERBATED in certain conditions.

Can pose threats to the INTERNAL validity of experiments.


Reinforcement history effects

5

1. Can control the previous history with the response and reinforcer (through the use of naïve animals)

2. Can control extra-experimental history during
the experiment (standard light-dark cycles,
controlled access to reinforcers outside of
sessions)

3. Don’t have to worry about influence of verbal
behavior

Why studies used NON-HUMAN animals

Reinforcement History Studies

6

Typically examined histories with different reinforcement schedules on CURRENT responding.

- Done by providing a history with two or more
“history SCHEDULES”.

-Responding on target schedule can then be assessed to determine extent to which history persists.



Reinforcement history studies

7

Historically, used as target schedules

May be particularly SENSITIVE to reinforcement history effects
-
Responses during the interval do not influence delivery of the reinforcer.

Response rates can vary widely without influencing reinforcement rate.

Therefore, they don’t select against particular rates or patterns of responding. If we establish those response rates, For instance, high or low or low rates in a history schedule or scalloped or break and run patterns we can look to see the extent to which these rates or patterns PERSIST during FI target schedules

Fixed Interval Schedules

Established History Effects on Reinforcement Schedules

8

NATURALLY Occurring schedules maintaining behavior may share features with FI schedules

FI schedules May be used for acquisition and Maintenance of appropriate behavior.

Why History Effects with FI Might
Be Important for Treatment

9

Influence two kinds of extinction
In different ways

Reinforcement history

10

...Highly sensitive to behavioral history.

Wiener study:
Exposure to FR or DRL schedules before FI Schedules dramatically affected FI performance.

(FR, produces very HIGH Rates of responding and DRL ProduceS very LOW response rate.)

Found Even REMOTE history seems to affect responding

History may be more influential when particular histories are CORRELATED with the distinct stimuli. Ie, room, color.

Study Suggests that CURRENT contingencies determine response rate in conjunction with previous reinforcement history

Weiner: Response rates were much higher on the FI schedule following the FR histories then following the DRL histories.













Responding during FI schedules...

12

Weiner’s study:

Should be considered when different treatment effects are observed across participants or across REPLICATIONS.

Could be used to improve intervention outcomes

Reinforcement history

13

manipulate rate on interval schedules by arranging for particular reinforcement histories
—Might generate higher rates of responding during that interval schedule as a function of the previous ratio schedule

Might be useful for academic improvement.
• Permit SHIFTS to interval schedules after establishing histories with DRA on RATIO schedules •••may create bias toward appropriate behavior


To produce those HIGH rates of responding During INTERVAL Schedule, Could;

14

Highly sensitive to behavioral history.

Responding during FI schedules.

15

Ono Iwabuchi study: non human: Rates of REMOTE history of FR, DRL schedules sustained when interval schedule introduced
IMPLICATION for Application: Residential TM
• Child’s Problem behavior reinforced on a DRH-like schedule in the home
Then, experiences treatment in a residential setting which results in decreased rate of problem behavior.
• Then Treatment implemented in home Following residential setting may result in HIGH response rates.
- likely to occur if a relatively WEAK- Schedule is used in treatment, even if treatment is implemented with high Integrity.

Ono Study

16

History effects during common treatment schedules (DRA, DRO, NCR)

Histories associated with particular stimulus
conditions in treatment contexts carries over to naturalistic Settings.

Extent to which stimulus conditions can be gradually shifted to promote or reduce history effects

Extent to which there are species differences in durability of behavioral history (more durable with human participants?)

Further research needed

17

Not obtained just with FI schedules.
•Alleman and Zeller:
Responding on FT Schedules following DRL or FR histories
.Initially Response rates were…
-Low during FT after DRL
-High during FT after FR
 Remote history played a role
FR - DRL -FT
 Response rates during FT were “ high”.
-FR more durable
Follow up study: FR then DRL then FT.
Response rates:
- high during FT
-Low during DRL
-High during FT - Suggest that remote history by the FR schedule continued to influence responding even though there was an intervening DRL schedule.
implications applications;

History Effects

18

Refers to request that are likely to result in compliance from client.

The sequence involves Repeated presentation of high- P requests with a few interspersed low -P Request.

Reinforcement given for COMPLIANCE, typically on a FR1 schedule
- increases compliance with low – P requests as a function of events in the clients immediate history.
But effects are short lived

High Priority - High-P

19

May influence responding during your assessments and interventions

Client Histories

20

Client Histories may influence responding during your assessments and interventions resulting in:

Responding in ways that you did not PREDICT:
-Unsuccessful treatment attempts
-Less rapid CHANGES in responding than predicted

21

Can pose threats to the internal validity of experiments

Historical variables

22

Dependent on the previous reinforcement of the organism.

All extinction effects

23



1. Respondent

2. Operant

Extinction- 2 types

24

Deals with reflective responses that are elicited by antecedent stimuli.

When a previously neutral stimulus is paired with an unconditioned stimulus, the previously neutral stimulus, Now: conditioned stimulus, will elicit a response similar to that elicited by the unconditioned stimulus.

Respondent (Classical conditioning)

25

No longer Pairing the stimuli, which results in the condition stimulus no longer producing the conditioned response.

Respondent extinction

26

Deals with the voluntary responses That are part of Contingencies.

Operant conditioning

27

Involves no longer providing the reinforcement dependent on the response.

This Results in decreased response rates by Breaking the contingency.

Operant extinction

28

Similar in that they both reduce the frequency of responding as a result of disrupting events that occurred contiguously In the environment.


Differ in the type of response that is disrupted and the type of disruption that occurs

Respondent extinction

Operant extinction

29

Here pairing does not occur Following any particular response.

It is Purely antecedent stimulus to the presentation of food, stimulus, and the body’s response to the presentation of food, response.
- S-R relationship. Purely respondent conditioning

However..

1. Can we say praise becomes capable of functioning as a reinforcer is strictly through responded conditioning even though we say that the food item with which it paired has already been defined as a known a reinforcer? There is Important operate history here but more analysis is required

2. A reinforcer does not function as a reinforcer strictly because it elicits a reflex such a salavation.
-Must be an EO that increases the value of the stimulus: typically for food, The EO is deprivation.

But even in the AO condition, when you have a full stomach you may still reflexively salivate to food on your tongue, but in this case the presentation of more food might actually function as a punisher.

And what is praise paired with the food here? The conditioned function of praise Would now depend on the related motivational Operation, NOT Strictly on it’s being paired with the elicited reflex response of salvation

Pairing to Develop a Conditioned Reinforcer

30

1. Can we say praise becomes capable of functioning as a reinforcer is strictly through responded conditioning even though we say that the food item with which it paired has already been defined as a known a reinforcer? There is Important operate history here but more analysis is required

Pairing with a “Known” Reinforcer

31

2. A reinforcer does not function as a reinforcer strictly because it elicits a reflex such a celebration.
-Must be an EO that increases the value of the stimulus: typically for food, The EO is deprivation.

But even in the AO condition, when you have a full stomach you may still reflexively salivate to food on your tongue, but in this case the presentation of more food might actually function as a punisher.

And what is praise repaired with the food here? The conditioned function of praise Would now depend on the related motivational Operation, NOT Strictly on it’s being paired with the elicited reflex response of salvation

Pairing to Develop a Conditioned Reinforcer