A Comparison of Response Cost and Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior to Reduce Disruptive Behavior in a Preschool Classroom

Abstract

This study investigated the effectiveness of response cost and differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) in reducing the disruptive behaviors of 25 children in a preschool classroom. Using an alternating treatments design, disruptive behavior was reduced when the participants earned tokens for the absence of disruptive behavior (DRO) or lost tokens for the occurrence of disruptive behavior (response cost). Initially, DRO was more successful in reducing the number of disruptive behaviors; however, over time, response cost proved to be more effective.DESCRIPTORS: differential reinforcement, disruptive behavior, preschoolers, response cost A few researchers have demonstrated the effectiveness of response cost and differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) for managing aggressive and disruptive behavior of children in preschool settings. In the response-cost procedures, individual children start with a number of tokens and then lose tokens contingent on each instance of the problem behavior. If a specified number of tokens remain at the end of the session, a reinforcer is delivered (e.g., McGoey & DuPaul, 2000;Reynolds & Kelley, 1997). In the DRO procedure, children earn tokens for the absence of problem behavior in continuous intervals during the session and receive a reinforcer if they have a specified number of tokens at the end of the session (Conyers, Miltenberger, Romaniuk, Kopp, & Himle, 2003 mented individually with 4 children in a preschool setting. Conyers et al. showed that DRO decreased problem behavior when implemented with an entire class of preschoolers. The purpose of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of response cost and DRO implemented on a classwide basis with preschool children. METHOD Participants and SettingThe participants were 25 children in a preschool classroom. The participants included 4 girls and 21 boys, 4 to 5 years old, who exhibited a high level of disruptive behaviors. The study was conducted in a classroom (25 m by 25 m) with two to three teachers present during every session. Target Behaviors and Data CollectionWe recorded the number of children who exhibited disruptive behaviors during each observation interval using a 10-s interval-recording system (8 s observe, 2 s record). During all sessions, observation intervals were cued by a tape recorder with the vol-

The effects of differential outcomes and different types of consequential stimuli on 7-year-old children’s discriminative learning and memory

“…The finding that 5-year-old children have a better performance when a response cost procedure is used (the contingent withdrawal of reinforcers; for similar results, see Conyers et al, 2004) may result from children at this age being more sensitive to a reinforcement withdrawal than are 7-year-old children, because they probably have not developed strategies and skills to handle the frustration generated by the loss of something they already possess-the secondary or primary reinforcer, in this case. We may hypothesize 1 These differences were statistically significant, F(1, 86) = 8.16, p < .01, η p 2 = .087, and F(1, 66) = 4.65, p < .05, η p 2 = .066, for the acquisition and memory test phases, respectively.…”

A Comparison of Cost and Reward Procedures With Interdependent Group Contingencies

“…Previous research has suggested that cost and reward procedures are equally effective in reducing disruptive behavior at the individual level (Conyers et al 2004;McGoey & DuPaul, 2000;Kaufman & O'Leary, 1972) but that cost procedures are more effective in maintaining lower levels of disruptive behavior across time (Conyers et al).…”

“…Previous research has compared the direct effectiveness of different variations of token economies when administered to individual students (Boren & Colman, 1970;Conyers et al, 2004;Kaufman & O'Leary, 1972;McGoey, & DuPaul, 2000;Iwata & Bailey, 1974) however research is limited on the effectiveness of variations of token economies in conjunction with group contingencies (Lloyd, Eberhardt, & Drake, 1996).…”

Response to Ahrendt, Houlihan, and Buchanan

“…It might also be useful to consider the use of response-cost (token loss) procedures to reduce inappropriate behavior. Such token-loss procedures have proven highly effective in both laboratory (Pietras & Hackenberg, 2005) and applied settings (Conyers et al, 2004;Iwata & Bailey, 1974). A simple fine or penalty may be more effective in dealing with misbehavior on the spot than the escalation of misconduct that eventually results in a time-out.…”