Conditioned Operant Response Phenomena in Children

Warren, A. Bertrand; Brown, Robert H.

doi:10.1080/00221309.1943.10545207

Cited by 20 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the basic laboratory, however, many attempts to demonstrate the PREE using within-subject designs have failed (e.g., Adams, Nemeth, & Pavlik, 1982;Cohen, Riley, & Weigle, 1993;Pavlik, Carlton, Lehr, & Hendrickson, 1967;Warren & Brown, 1943). In some of these studies, subjects were exposed to different reinforcement schedules alternated with extinction in a reversal design.…”

Section: Sungwoo Kahng the University Of Floridamentioning

confidence: 99%

Responding Maintained by Intermittent Reinforcement: Implications for the Use of Extinction With Problem Behavior in Clinical Settings

Lerman

Iwata

Shore

et al. 1996

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Results of basic research have demonstrated that behavior maintained on an intermittent schedule of reinforcement (INT) will be extinguished more slowly than behavior maintained on a continuous schedule (CRF). Although these findings suggest that problem behaviors may be difficult to treat with extinction if they have been maintained on INT rather than on CRF schedules, few applied studies have examined this phenomenon with human behavior in clinical settings. The purpose of this study was to determine whether problem behavior maintained on CRF schedules would be extinguished more rapidly than behavior maintained on INT schedules. Three individuals diagnosed with profound mental retardation participated after results of pretreatment functional analyses had identified the sources of reinforcement that were maintaining their self-injury, aggression, or disruption. Subjects were exposed to extinction following baseline conditions with CRF or INT schedules alternated within reversal or multielement designs. Results suggested that problem behavior may not be more difficult to treat with extinction if they have been maintained on INT rather than CRF schedules. However, switching from an INT to a CRF schedule prior to extinction may lower the baseline response rate as well as the total number of responses exhibited during extinction.

show abstract

Section: Sungwoo Kahng the University Of Floridamentioning

confidence: 99%

Responding Maintained by Intermittent Reinforcement: Implications for the Use of Extinction With Problem Behavior in Clinical Settings

Lerman

Iwata

Shore

et al. 1996

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, reductions in response rate do not always follow a monotonic function; instead, individuals exposed to extinction tend to respond sporadically during the sessions, gradually pausing for longer periods of time (e.g., Herrick, 1965;Hurwitz, 1962;Warren & Brown, 1943). That is, they tend to allocate less and less time to the response, but when they engage in the behavior, they do so at rates similar to those in acquisition.…”

Section: Basic (Nonclinical) Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Disinhibition is relatively transient and has not been observed consistently with either humans or nonhumans (cf. Skinner, 1936;Spradlin, Fixsen, & Girardeau, 1969;Warren & Brown, 1943). However, its occurrence may depend on a number of factors, including the type (Horns & Heron, 1940), duration (Brimer, 1970a), and novelty (Yamaguchi & Ladioray, 1962) of the stimulus and the length of time the behavior has been exposed to extinction prior to the introduction of the stimulus (Brimer, 1970a).…”

Section: Basic (Nonclinical) Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing a Technology for the Use of Operant Extinction in Clinical Settings: An Examination of Basic and Applied Research

Lerman

Iwata

1996

J of App Behav Analysis

189

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Extinction of operant behavior, which involves terminating the reinforcement contingency that maintains a response, is important to the development, generalization, and reduction of behavior in clinical settings. We review basic and applied research findings on variables that influence the direct and indirect effects of extinction and discuss the potential value of a general technology for the use of extinction. We suggest that current research findings are not sufficient for the development of a comprehensive, applied technology of extinction and provide extensive guidelines for further studies on factors that may affect the course of extinction in clinical settings.DESCRIPTORS: extinction, behavior disorders, reinforcementExtinction of operant behavior involves terminating the reinforcement contingency that maintains a response, which results in a reduction in the behavior's occurrence over time. 1 Results of basic research (e.g., Ferster & Skinner, 1957;Skinner, 1938) have revealed much about its direct and indirect effects, including a number of variables that influence the general course of responding during extinction. These findings have important implications for the use of extinction in applied settings, in which behavior is ofWe thank Marc Branch, Timothy Hackenberg, Cecil Mercer, and Betty Capaldi for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.Reprints may be obtained from

show abstract

“…Zeiler, 1978). However, studies with human subjects have not been uncommon, beginning as early as the 1940s (e.g., Warren & Brown, 1943) and continuing to the present (see Buskist & Miller, 1982). The results reported in the initial studies with humans generally replicated those reported with nonhumans (e.g., Holland, 1958), but as the literature grew, some differences emerged, primarily in the area of schedules of reinforcement (e.g., Laties & Weiss, 1963;Long, Hammack, May, & Campbell, 1958), Schedules of reinforcement, defined as the manner in which reinforcements are assigned to particular responses (Catania, 1968, p. 345), may be the most thoroughly researched topic in EAB (Morse, 1966, p. 57).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Generality of free-operant avoidance conditioning to human behavior.

Higgins¹,

Morris²

1984

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The generality of free-operant avoidance conditioning between human and nonhuman behavior is reviewed. The following five topics are examined: (a) response acquisition, (b) response maintenance, (c) extinction, (d) exteroceptive stimuli, and (e) pharmacological agents. The results from research with humans are compared and contrasted with those from nonhumans. Following this, the differences between human and nonhuman behavior on avoidance schedules are related and compared with those identified for humans and nonhumans on schedules of positive reinforcement. The variables accounting for these differences in both literatures, and in the positive reinforcement literature alone, are discussed. Generality does exist between human and nonhuman avoidance conditioning, but differences similar to those between humans and nonhumans on schedules of positive reinforcement arise. These differences, though, are amenable to explanations based on other established principles of behaviorenvironment relations.

show abstract

Conditioned Operant Response Phenomena in Children

Cited by 20 publications

References 21 publications

Responding Maintained by Intermittent Reinforcement: Implications for the Use of Extinction With Problem Behavior in Clinical Settings

Responding Maintained by Intermittent Reinforcement: Implications for the Use of Extinction With Problem Behavior in Clinical Settings

Developing a Technology for the Use of Operant Extinction in Clinical Settings: An Examination of Basic and Applied Research

Generality of free-operant avoidance conditioning to human behavior.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About