Discriminative Control of Punished Stereotyped Behavior in Humans

Abstract

The purpose of this experiment was to establish discriminative control of responding by an antecedent stimulus using differential punishment because the results of past studies on this topic have been mixed. Three adults with mental retardation who exhibited stereotypy not maintained by social consequences (i.e., automatic reinforcement) participated. For each subject, stereotypy occurred frequently in the presence of a stimulus correlated with nonpunishment of stereotypy and rarely, if ever, in the presence of a stimulus correlated with punishment of stereotypy. Latency measures showed that the antecedent stimulus correlated with punishment served as the discriminative stimulus for the suppression of stereotypy. These results are important insofar as they show that discriminative control by an antecedent stimulus develops with punishment, and because it sometimes may be desirable to establish such control of socially inappropriate behavior.

Multiple schedules in practical application: Research trends and implications for future investigation

“…That is, in addition to arranging periods in which reinforcement for a target behavior is available and unavailable (i.e., EXT), researchers have associated these periods with a variety of salient environmental stimuli to promote stimulus control. In particular, multiple schedules have been used (a) to promote stimulus control over high-rate appropriate behaviors (e.g., frequent requests for adult attention) in typically developing children (Cammilleri, Tiger, & Hanley, 2008; Tiger & Hanley, 2004, 2005; Vargo, Heal, Epperley, & Kooistra, 2014), (b) to teach individuals with intellectual disabilities who engage in severe problem behavior to request the putative reinforcer maintaining problem behavior only when the S D is present and to gradually tolerate longer periods in which the S D is absent (Betz, Fisher, Roane, Mintz, & Owen, 2013; Fisher, Kuhn, & Thompson, 1998; Hagopian, Toole, Long, Bowman, & Lieving, 2004; Hagopian, Contrucci Kuhn, Long, & Rush, 2005; Hanley, Iwata, & Thompson, 2001; Rooker, Jessel, Kurtz, & Hagopian, 2013), and (c) to signal periods of punishment in the treatment of severe problem behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement displayed by individuals with intellectual disabilities (Anderson, Doughty, Doughty, Williams, & Saunders, 2010; Doughty, Anderson, Doughty, Williams, & Saunders, 2007; Rollings & Baumeister, 1981). …”

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

“…For example, a rat may press a lever on a fixed-ratio (FR) 5 schedule to obtain food and press the same lever to avoid shock on a variable-ratio (VR) 3 schedule. Although conjoint schedules are typically used to describe two or more schedules of reinforcement, such schedules can also be used to evaluate one component containing reinforcement and another component containing punishment (e.g., Doughty, Anderson, Doughty, Williams, & Saunders, 2007).…”

“…This effect may be simulated by conjoint schedules wherein components involving with reinforcing and 'punishing' stimulation are presented contingent on a response. From an experimental standpoint, it may not be possible to provide interoceptive stimulation that is generated as a byproduct of repetitious muscle movement on a specific conjoint-nonsocial-reinforcement-social-punishment (CNRSP) schedule; however, some effects of providing aversive social stimulation contingent on automatically reinforced behavior have already been reported in the literature (e.g., Doughty et al, 2007;Lerman, Iwata, Shore, & DeLeon, 1997). Thus, it is possible that studies involving social punishment of automatically reinforced behavior can serve as a model for basic preparations involving CNRSP schedules.…”

A case study in the misrepresentation of applied behavior analysis in autism: The gernsbacher lectures

“…These include the Juniper Gardens Children's Project for youth, school, and community development (Hall, Schiefelbusch, Greenwood, & Hoyt, 2006) and Achievement Place for juvenile offenders (i.e., the Teaching Family Model; Wolf, Kirigin, Fixsen, Blase, & Braukmann, 1995), both of them in collaboration with the Bureau of Child Research, now the Schiefelbusch Institute for Life Span Studies (Schiefelbsuch & Schroeder, 2006;see Baer, 1993a;Goodall, 1972). 2 Applied behavior analysis involves an integration of research and application, including use-inspired basic research (i.e., basic research in the interests of application; e.g., stimulus control of stereotyped behavior; Doughty, Anderson, Doughty, Williams, & Saunders, 2007), discovery research (i.e., research on unplanned findings; e.g., on the overjustification effect; Roane, Fisher, & McDonough, 2003), and translational research (i.e., the translation of basic research into practice; e.g., reinforcer magnitude and delay; Lerman, Addison, & Kodak, 2006). In the main, however, ABA addresses atypical behavior (e.g., stereotypy; Reeve, Reeve, Townsend, & Poulson, 2007), methods for its assessment and analysis (e.g., functional assessment and analysis; R. H. Thompson & Iwata, 2007), behavior-change procedures (e.g., desensitization for phobias; Ricciardi, Luiselli, & Camare, 2006), packages of behavior-change procedures (e.g., self-management; peer-mediated treatments; Stahmer & Schreibman, 1992), and comprehensive programs of treatment (e.g., early intensive behavioral interventions; T. Smith, Groen, & Wynn, 2000).…”