Unit 4 Flashcards
Hanley et al. (1999, 2003, 2006) Findings:
– 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
Reinforcer & schedules dimensions known to influence relative response allocation
- Quality
- Rate of reinforcement
- Reinforcer magnitude
- Delay to reinforcement
- Self-control: Delay vs. magnitude
Neef et al. studies (1992, 1994, 2001)
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!)
methods for incorporating different reinforcers
- Stimulus variation
- Daily brief preference assessment
- Pre-session selection
- Post-response reinforcer choice
Stimulus variation • Egel (1982) Findings:
With constant reinforcer, decreases in responding occurred across successive blocks of trials. (satiation)
But, when reinforcers are varied, this responding does not decrease.
Daily brief preference assessment
DeLeon et al. (2000)
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.
Pre-session selection vs. Within-session choice Graff & Libby (1999)
Found that learners prefer within-session choice arrangements over pre-session choice arrangements
Post-response reinforcer choice
Dyer, Dunlap, and Winterling (1990)
reduced levels of problem behavior observed when students, rather than teachers, choose which instructional tasks and reinforcers
Reinforcer Choice not always effective! HP
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
Reinforcer Choice not always effective! LP
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
Yoking procedures
Ensures quality of reinforcement constant across choice and no-choice conditions. These studies suggest no effects of choice
Ceiling effects
response rates as high as the learner’s abilities permit regardless of conditions
More Choice – summary -
Smith et al., Lerman et al., Waldron-Soler et al.
No effect of choice in single operant
More choice -Tiger et al.
Preference for choice in concurrent choice
Motivational Operations Gottschalk, Libby, & Graff (2000)
preference assessment (food) outcomes can be influenced by satiation/deprivation effects
Motivational Operations
Hanley et al. (2006)
Satiation can influence preference rank
Motivational Operations
McAdam et al. (2005)
Deprivation and satiation effects also influenced preference assessment with activities
Motivational Operations Does sat/depriv also influence performance? 1
Vollmer& Iwata (1991)- less natural conditions of sat/dep - various stimuli.. stronger effect with deprivation
Motivational Operations Does sat/depriv also influence performance? 2
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…
Arguments against tangibles
Not natural/cumbersome. Not natural difficult to deliver immed. Can disrupt ongoing beh. Food health concerns. More $.
Arguments for praise
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?
Difficult to assess social reinforcers Smaby, McDonald, Ahearn, & Dube (2007)
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
Dozier (2007)
Compared procedures for establishing praise as a reinforcer: 1.
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
Egel 1982- stimulus variation
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
Dyer, Dunlap, & Winterling (1990)
Task choice associated with reduced levels of problem behavior
Choice may:
- Make instructional environment less aversive (AO for problem Bx)
- Permit individuals to avoid non- preferred activities (AO for problem Bx)
- Provide control (EO for engagement?)
CHOICE CONCLUSIONS
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
Mueller & Dweck (1998)- 5th graders given a task Praise delivered for Intelligence (trait) or Effort (behavior)
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
Intrinsically motivated behavior
“Demonstrated when people engage in an activity primarily for its own sake.”
Extrinsically motivated behavior
“Controlled by incentives that are not part of the activity.” (outside of)
Extrinsic/Intrinsic Prototype study: Deci (1971)
interpreted as decrease in interest after rewards – mostly in educational contexts.. In spite of fact there was increase during time of rewards.
Sorts of rewards
- Quality dependent rewards:
- Completion dependent rewards:
- Performance independent rewards
Eisenberger & Cameron (1996)
Meta-analy. available research effect sizes by reward type
Found most robust detrimental effect on intrinsic motivation was when tangible reward was given for engagement only…(performance independent)
The Use of Praise and Social Reinforcers – Extrinsic & Intrinsic Motivation-What to say?
- 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.
- Some effects may be best attributed to satiation, especially when reward does increase engagement in the response and the effects are measured immediately afterwards.
- From a behavior-analytic perspective, this might be conceptualized as behavioral contrast, which tends to be inconsistent and transient.
- Quality-dependent verbal rewards actually have positive effect on intrinsic interest.
The Use of Praise and Social Reinforcers – Token Reinforcement 1
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
The Use of Praise and Social Reinforcers – Token Reinforcement 2
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
Token reinforcement: DeLeon, Chase, Frank and colleagues (under review) studied response rates and tokens
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
