Chapter 14 Flashcards
What is the difference in the use of the schedules of reinforcement in Chapter 10 compared to the differential reinforcement procedures in this chapter?
Procedures presented in earlier chapters that can be used to increase and maintain operant behavior include positive reinforcement, shaping, fading, chaining, stimulus discrimination training, and the schedules of reinforcement described in Chapter 10. Procedures that can be used to decrease operant behavior include operant extinction (described in Chapter 8), punishment (described in Chapter 15), the antecedent control procedures described in Part III (Chapters 19, 20, and 21), and the differential reinforcement procedures described in this chapter.
*Describe briefly, point by point, how Tommy’s talking out in class was reduced.
a. Tommy received instructions about a procedure.
b. According to the procedure, five minutes of play at the end of the day was made available to Tommy for each 50-minute session where he had three or fewer “talk-outs.” Thus, frequent talk-outs were not consequated by a special reinforcer. Infrequent talk-outs were consequated by a special reinforcer.
Explain, in general, what a DRL schedule is. Give an example of one that occurs in everyday life and that is not in this chapter.
Differential reinforcement of low rates (DRL) is a schedule of reinforcement in which a reinforcer is presented only if a particular response occurs at a low rate.
Define limited-responding DRL. Give an example.
One type of DRL schedule, called limited-responding DRL, specifies a maximum allowable number of responses during a certain time interval in order for a reinforcer to occur. This was the type of schedule used with Tommy. In that case, an interval of 50 minutes was specified and a reinforcer occurred at the end of the interval if it contained three or fewer talk-outs.
The maximum allowable number of responses in limited-responding DRL for reinforcement to occur can be specified for an entire session or for separate intervals throughout a session. An example of the latter would be to divide Tommy’s 50-minute session into three intervals, each approximately 17 minutes long, and to give Tommy reinforcement at the end of each interval in which no more than one talk-out occurred.
Define spaced-responding DRL. Give an example.
A second type of DRL, called spaced-responding DRL, requires that a specified behavior not occur during a specified interval, and after the interval has passed, an instance of that behavior must then occur in order for a reinforcer to occur.
In other words, instances of a specific behavior must be spaced out over time. Spaced-responding DRL is useful when the behavior to be reduced is actually desirable provided that it does not occur at too high a rate.
For example, a student who always calls out the correct answer deprives classmates of the chance to respond to the teacher’s questions. Naturally, we would not wish to eliminate this child’s correct answering. We would hope, however, to reduce the calling out behavior. We might do this by placing the behavior on the following type of DRL schedule: Any target response that occurs a er 15 minutes of the previous target response is immediately reinforced; any target response that occurs within 15 minutes of the previous target response is not reinforced. Note that a target response before the interval has passed causes the timing of the interval to start over again. is procedure is called a spaced-responding DRL 1-response/15-minute schedule. is type of schedule requires that responses be emitted for reinforcement to occur. On the limited-responding schedule used with Tommy, the individual need not respond at all to obtain reinforcement.
*How is a spaced-responding DRL procedurally similar to and different from an FI schedule?
In spaced-responding DRL and on an FI schedule, the first response following some interval of time is reinforced. In spaced-responding DRL, the interval of time is measured from the previous response, whereas in FI it is measured from some other event—usually the previous reinforcer. Spaced-responding DRL is different from an FI schedule in that, in the former, responding before the specified interval has passed causes a recycling of the time interval. On an FI schedule, responding by the individual before the time interval has passed has no programmed consequence.
What is a procedural difference between a spaced-responding DRL and an FD schedule?
In spaced responding DRL, a fixed time must pass in which the response does not occur in order for a response to produce a reinforcer. On an FD schedule, the response must occur continuously for a fixed period of time in order for reinforcement to occur. ?
Describe in some detail an example, which is not in this chapter, of how DRL would be useful in treating a behavior problem. Indicate which type of DRL is to be used.
Lennox, Miltenberger, and Donnelly (1987) used a spaced-responding DRL to decrease the eating rate of three individuals with profound developmental disabilities who ate their meals at such a rapid rate that it was considered unhealthy. Another use of spaced-responding DRL is to treat the speech of a student who speaks too rapidly. e student would be asked questions such as “How are you?” or “Where do you live?” for which standard responses are reinforced—but only if they encompass a certain minimum time period whose length is determined by what the teacher regards as a normally acceptable rate of speech. us, the sequence of respond–wait–respond is reinforced provided that the wait is long enough.
Explain what a DRO schedule is. Give an example of one that occurs in everyday life.
Differential reinforcement of zero responding (DRO) is a schedule in which a reinforcer is presented only if a specified response does not occur during a specified period of time.
Note that a target response before the interval has passed causes the timing of the interval to start over again. Working with the nurses in the hospital, researchers (Cowdery, Iwata, & Pace, 1990) began with a schedule referred to as DRO 2 minutes. If scratching occurred during the 2-minute interval, the interval started again. However, if scratching did not occur, i.e., was at a zero rate, Gerry was given tokens that he could later exchange for access to TV, snacks, video games, and various play materials. Over several days, the DRO interval was increased to 4 minutes, then to 8 minutes, then to 15 minutes, and eventually to 30 minutes. Although DRO was initially applied in brief sessions, it was subsequently extended to the entire day. Eventually, Gerry was discharged from the hospital, and his parents continued to use the procedure at home.
Describe in some detail an example, which is not in this chapter, of how a DRO might be useful in treating a behavior problem.
If an undesirable behavior occurs often and for long intervals, beginning with a DRO of short duration would be wise. For example, DRO 5 minutes might be used to eliminate tantrum behavior. is procedure can be carried out by using a stopwatch—on your cell phone or other device—that can be set to zero each time a tantrum occurs and allowed to “tick off ” seconds until the tantrum stops. Reinforcement would occur when a continuous 5 minutes had elapsed with no tantrums. When the nonoccurrence of the behavior is under good control of this contingency, schedule thinning should begin. at is, the schedule should be increased—for example, to DRO 10 minutes. e size of DRO should continue to be increased in this fashion until (a) the behavior is occurring very rarely or not at all and (b) a minimum amount of reinforcement is being given for its nonoccurrence.
Explain why the terms “DR0” and “DRO” are interchangeable.
The terms are interchangeable because the “O” and the “0” both stand for zero responding. ?
Explain what a DRI schedule is. Give an example that is not in this chapter.
If we decide to decrease a target response by withholding reinforcers for it and by reinforcing an incompatible response, the schedule is referred to as differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior(DRI). Suppose you are a grade school teacher who wants to eliminate running-around-the-room behavior of a student with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. One possibility would be to put the behavior on a DRO schedule; however, it might be replaced by an incompatible behavior that is also undesirable—for example, lying on the floor. To avoid this, you might use DRI instead of DRO by specifying the incompatible behavior that is to be reinforced. You might, for example, reinforce sitting quietly. An even better choice would be completing schoolwork because this behavior is more useful to the child. As another example, Allen and Stokes (1987) applied DRI successfully to strengthen the behavior of being still and quiet while children were being treated in a dentist’s chair. See Table 14.1 for other examples of potential incompatible behaviors for target behaviors.
Why might a DRI schedule sometimes be chosen instead of a DRO schedule?
When applying a DRO, some behavior is occurring when the reinforcer is received. Even though Gerry wasn’t scratching, for example, he was doing something when the 30-minute interval passed and he was given a token. Whatever that behavior was, it would be reinforced when the reinforcer occurred. Rather than leave that behavior to chance or unknown factors, however, one might specify an incompatible response that is to be reinforced in eliminating a particular target response. By an incompatible response, we mean a response that cannot be emitted at the same time as the target response. For example, sitting and standing are incompatible behaviors. If we decide to decrease a target response by withholding reinforcers for it and by reinforcing an incompatible response, the schedule is referred to as differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior (DRI).
What is the difference between DRI and DRA?
An alternative to DRI is the differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA), which is a procedure that involves the extinction of a problem behavior combined with reinforcing a behavior that is topographically dissimilar to but not necessarily incompatible with the problem behavior.
Consider the case of Kyle, a 4-year-old boy with severe developmental disabilities. During training sessions, Kyle was frequently aggressive and attempted to hit, scratch, or kick the therapist. To decrease this behavior, Vollmer et al. implemented a DRA. During training sessions, they reinforced compliance with performing various requested tasks and ignored aggressive behavior. Note that this was a DRA instead of a DRI in that Kyle was physically able to be compliant and still show aggression. The DRA nevertheless was effective in decreasing Kyle’s aggression as well as increasing his compliance.
The use of DRA to eliminate an undesirable behavior is essentially what we recommended in Chapter 8 when we stated, “Extinction is most effective when combined with positive reinforcement for some desirable alternative behavior.” In fact, DRA and the other schedules discussed in this chapter will likely be effective if you use the reinforcer that was maintaining the undesirable behavior.
What happens if the frequency of reinforcement on DRL, DRO, DRI, or DRA is too low or is decreased too rapidly?
A pitfall that is unique to DRL is the tendency to unknowingly reinforce a desirable behavior on a DRL, thereby causing that desirable behavior to occur at a low rate rather than reinforcing the behavior on a schedule that would maintain that behavior at a high rate.
