Unit 4

Question 1

Hanley et al. (1999, 2003, 2006) Findings:

Answer 1

– Clear preferences emerged when access follows pictorial representation
– Enhancing an activity with supplemental contingent reinforcement can shift choices towards that activity
– Noncontingent pairing of an activity with established preferred stimuli can shift choices towards activity
– Effects seem to be transient

Question 2

Reinforcer & schedules dimensions known to influence relative response allocation

Answer 2

1. Quality
2. Rate of reinforcement
3. Reinforcer magnitude
4. Delay to reinforcement
5. Self-control: Delay vs. magnitude

Question 3

Neef et al. studies (1992, 1994, 2001)

Answer 3

Assessment to determine which aspect of reinforcer delivery children most sensitive to:
• Rate • Quality • Immediacy • Effort
Why useful?
1. Avoids trial and error for each student
2. Influential dimensions may correlate with
Diagnoses (like ADHD did with immediacy!)

Question 4

methods for incorporating different reinforcers

Answer 4

1. Stimulus variation
2. Daily brief preference assessment
3. Pre-session selection
4. Post-response reinforcer choice

Question 5

Stimulus variation • Egel (1982) Findings:

Answer 5

With constant reinforcer, decreases in responding occurred across successive blocks of trials. (satiation)
But, when reinforcers are varied, this responding does not decrease.

Question 6

Daily brief preference assessment

DeLeon et al. (2000)

Answer 6

Initial, then daily preference assessments
– Examined relative response allocation & when the most preferred item differed… Found that the reinforcer identified that day, is the most effective reinforcer.

Question 7

Pre-session selection vs. Within-session choice Graff & Libby (1999)

Answer 7

Found that learners prefer within-session choice arrangements over pre-session choice arrangements

Question 8

Post-response reinforcer choice

Dyer, Dunlap, and Winterling (1990)

Answer 8

reduced levels of problem behavior observed when students, rather than teachers, choose which instructional tasks and reinforcers

Question 9

Reinforcer Choice not always effective! HP

Answer 9

Reinforcer Choice not always effective! HP Smith et al. (1995) and Lerman et al. (1997) suggested no choice effects if all stimuli are high preference

Question 10

Reinforcer Choice not always effective! LP

Answer 10

Reinforcer Choice not always effective! LP Waldron-Soler et al. (2000) replicated Lerman procedures but used LP stimuli. Found no differences for choice vs. no-choice conditions when the less preferred stimuli used as reinforcers and also found low response rates

Question 11

Yoking procedures

Answer 11

Ensures quality of reinforcement constant across choice and no-choice conditions. These studies suggest no effects of choice

Question 12

Ceiling effects

Answer 12

response rates as high as the learner’s abilities permit regardless of conditions

Question 13

More Choice – summary -

Answer 13

Smith et al., Lerman et al., Waldron-Soler et al.

No effect of choice in single operant

Question 14

More choice -Tiger et al.

Answer 14

Preference for choice in concurrent choice

Question 15

Motivational Operations Gottschalk, Libby, & Graff (2000)

Answer 15

preference assessment (food) outcomes can be influenced by satiation/deprivation effects

Question 16

Motivational Operations

Hanley et al. (2006)

Answer 16

Satiation can influence preference rank

Question 17

Motivational Operations

McAdam et al. (2005)

Answer 17

Deprivation and satiation effects also influenced preference assessment with activities

Question 18

Motivational Operations Does sat/depriv also influence performance? 1

Answer 18

Vollmer& Iwata (1991)- less natural conditions of sat/dep - various stimuli.. stronger effect with deprivation

Question 19

Motivational Operations Does sat/depriv also influence performance? 2

Answer 19

Zhou, Iwata, & Shore (2002) Deprivation and satiation for food reinforcers under less contrived arrangements – found no strong effect as both dep/sat produced responses higher than baseline…

Question 20

Arguments against tangibles

Answer 20

Not natural/cumbersome. Not natural difficult to deliver immed. Can disrupt ongoing beh. Food health concerns. More $.

Question 21

Arguments for praise

Answer 21

Natural in classroom. Doesn’t disrupt responding
No cost but effort. Little time immed/ to multiple individuals. Less subject to satiation? More easily maintained? May increase task interest?

Question 22

Difficult to assess social reinforcers Smaby, McDonald, Ahearn, & Dube (2007)

Answer 22

eliminated preference assessments. Conducted brief reinforcer assessments for social stimuli with – Social consequence vs. extinction. Used tickles, head rubs, praise
Did see lower levels during extinction

Question 23

Dozier (2007)

Compared procedures for establishing praise as a reinforcer: 1.

Answer 23

New response procedure – pairing previously neutral stimulus with already established reinforcer, then presenting previously neutral stimulus contingent upon new response to see whether that stimulus has obtained conditioned reinforcing properties DID NOT WORK

Question 24

Egel 1982- stimulus variation

Answer 24

Egel (1982)
–Compared constant & varied consequences
–With one constant reinforcer, participants demonstrated gradual reductions in responding, but when reinforcers are varied, responding was maintained at high levels

Question 25

Dyer, Dunlap, & Winterling (1990) | Task choice associated with reduced levels of problem behavior

Answer 25

Choice may: 1. Make instructional environment less aversive (AO for problem Bx) 2. Permit individuals to avoid non- preferred activities (AO for problem Bx) 3. Provide control (EO for engagement?)

Question 26

CHOICE CONCLUSIONS

Answer 26

Smith et al., Lerman et al., Waldron-Soler et al.: No effect of choice in single operant arrangement Tiger et al.: Preference for choice in concurrent arrangement Geckeler et al.: Preference for choice in concurrent arrangement but no difference in single operant Conclusions: Choice may be preferable but not always beneficial

Question 27

Mueller & Dweck (1998)- 5th graders given a task Praise delivered for Intelligence (trait) or Effort (behavior)

Answer 27

Children praised for their intelligence – Less likely to select learning goals than performance goals and, after failures, • Less likely to persist in task • Less likely to enjoy task • Worse task performance – More likely to believe intelligence to be a fixed trait while • Children praised for hard work believe intelligence to be more subject to improvement

Question 28

Intrinsically motivated behavior

Answer 28

“Demonstrated when people engage in an activity primarily for its own sake.”

Question 29

Extrinsically motivated behavior

Answer 29

“Controlled by incentives that are not part of the activity.” (outside of)

Question 30

Extrinsic/Intrinsic Prototype study: Deci (1971)

Answer 30

interpreted as decrease in interest after rewards – mostly in educational contexts.. In spite of fact there was increase during time of rewards.

Question 31

Sorts of rewards

Answer 31

1. Quality dependent rewards: 2. Completion dependent rewards: 3. Performance independent rewards

Question 32

Eisenberger & Cameron (1996) | Meta-analy. available research effect sizes by reward type

Answer 32

Found most robust detrimental effect on intrinsic motivation was when tangible reward was given for engagement only…(performance independent)

Question 33

The Use of Praise and Social Reinforcers – Extrinsic & Intrinsic Motivation-What to say?

Answer 33

1. There is one sort of arrangement in which this does occur, but its not what we typically do. The receipt of rewards in education and business usually depends on task completion, performance quality, or both…reward procedures not reliably found to reduce intrinsic task interest. 2. Some effects may be best attributed to satiation, especially when reward does increase engagement in the response and the effects are measured immediately afterwards. 3. From a behavior-analytic perspective, this might be conceptualized as behavioral contrast, which tends to be inconsistent and transient. 4. Quality-dependent verbal rewards actually have positive effect on intrinsic interest.

Question 34

The Use of Praise and Social Reinforcers – Token Reinforcement 1

Answer 34

The Use of Praise and Social Reinforcers – Token Reinforcement 1 Advantages of token reinforcers: – Tokens can help mediate delays to reinforcement – Don’t disrupt ongoing responding – Can use single reinforcer for individuals that have different preferences

Question 35

The Use of Praise and Social Reinforcers – Token Reinforcement 2

Answer 35

The Use of Praise and Social Reinforcers – Token Reinforcement 2 Components of token systems: – Tokens – Token training – Earn schedules – Banking accumulation) – Exchange schedules – Exchange periods – Back-up reinforcers

Question 36

Token reinforcement: DeLeon, Chase, Frank and colleagues (under review) studied response rates and tokens

Answer 36

Tokens associated with hi preference stimuli preferred over those associated w low preference stimuli - Tokens associated with single reinforcer are subject to satiation effects for their back-up Generalized conditioned reinforcers: • Associated with multiple back-ups • Are less subject to satiation effects