Conjugate reinforcement: a brief review and suggestions for applications to the assessment of automatically reinforced behavior

Rapp, John T.

doi:10.1002/bin.259

Cited by 31 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Treating automatically reinforced behavior, regardless of topography, carries unique challenges (Rapp, 2008;Rapp & Vollmer, 2005). Therefore, a future area of research may focus on the treatment of automatically maintained elopement.…”

Section: Fa Results and Treatmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic Review of Functional Analysis and Treatment of Elopement (2000–2015)

Boyle

Adamson

2017

Behav Analysis Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Elopement is a dangerous behavior that is emitted by a large proportion of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Functional analysis and functionbased treatments are critical in identifying maintaining reinforcers and decreasing elopement. The purpose of this review was to identify recent trends in the functional analysis and treatment of elopement, as well as determine the efficacy (standardized mean differences) of recent treatments. Over half of subjects' elopement was maintained by social positive reinforcement, while only 25% of subjects' elopement was maintained by social negative reinforcement. Elopement was rarely maintained by automatic reinforcement, and none of the studies in the current review evaluated treatments to address automatically maintained elopement. Functional communication training was the most common intervention regardless of function. Results are discussed in terms of clinical implications and directions for future research.

show abstract

Section: Fa Results and Treatmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic Review of Functional Analysis and Treatment of Elopement (2000–2015)

Boyle

Adamson

2017

Behav Analysis Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Likewise, Fromm and Shor (2006) alluded to conjugate schedules to account for interpersonal interactions whereby responses and reinforcers continuously covary. Rapp (2008) outlined the potential role of conjugate schedules of reinforcement and punishment in the maintenance and treatment of automatically reinforced behaviors (e.g., stereotypical hand-flapping; see also Lovaas, Newsom, & Hickman, 1987) displayed by individuals with autism spectrum disorder and related intellectual disabilities. Because of the potential ubiquity of conjugate schedules in nature and the applied relevance of behavior that may be influenced by such schedules, experimental behavioral analysis of conjugate schedules seems warranted.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting conjugate schedules

MacAleese

Ghezzi

Rapp

2015

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of conjugate reinforcement on the responding of 13 college students were examined in three experiments. Conjugate reinforcement was provided via key presses that changed the clarity of pictures displayed on a computer monitor in a manner proportional to the rate of responding. Experiment 1, which included seven parameters of clarity change per response, revealed that responding decreased as the percentage clarity per response increased for all five participants. These results indicate that each participant's responding was sensitive to intensity change, which is a parameter of conjugate reinforcement schedules. Experiment 2 showed that responding increased during conjugate reinforcement phases and decreased during extinction phases for all four participants. Experiment 3 also showed that responding increased during conjugate reinforcement and further showed that responding decreased during a conjugate negative punishment condition for another four participants. Directions for future research with conjugate schedules are briefly discussed.

show abstract

“…Subsequently, Lanovaz and Sladeczek (2012) expanded that definition to explicitly include vocal response forms that are categorized as vocal stereotypy (e. g., acontextual vocalizations, humming, and scripting). Behaviors in both categories persist due to the sensory stimulation produced directly by the behavior (e.g., Piazza, Adelinis, Hanley, Goh, & Delia, 2000;Rapp, 2008). These definitions provide general categories for response forms that can vary substantially from individual to individual.…”

Section: Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%