Effects of Reinforcer Quality on Behavioral Momentum: Coordinated Applied and Basic Research

Abstract

The high-probability (high-p) instructional sequence has been an effective treatment for noncompliance. However, treatment failures have also been reported. We hypothesized that the efficacy of the high-p treatment may be improved by using higher quality reinforcers for compliance to high-p instructions. The resistance of compliance to change was tested by varying reinforcer quality in two applied studies and a basic laboratory experiment. Experiment 1 tested the hypothesis that an increase in reinforcer quality for highp compliance will increase the effectiveness of the high-p treatment when it fails to increase compliance. Experiment 2 assessed the effects of reinforcer quality on resistance of compliance to change by presenting successive low-p requests following the high-p treatment. A basic laboratory study (Experiment 3) was conducted to further isolate the relation between reinforcer quality and behavioral momentum. Two different liquid reinforcers (sucrose and citric acid solutions) were presented in a two-component multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedule followed by a single extinction test session. Results of all three experiments showed a generally consistent relationship between reinforcer quality and behavioral momentum.

Effects of Behavioral History on Resistance to Change

“…Resistance to change is measured by comparing response rates during disruption such that the response that decreases less, relative to its own baseline rate , is said to be more resistant. Several dimensions of the reinforcer influence resistance to change, including its rate (e.g., Nevin, 1974), immediacy (e.g., Grace, Schwendiman, & Nevin, 1998), magnitude (e.g., Harper, 1996), and quality (Mace, Mauro, Boyajian, & Eckert, 1997). In addition, dimensions of the response that influence resistance are its rate (e.g., Lattal, 1989) and variation (Doughty & Lattal, 2001).…”

O efeito da consequência programada sobre a estabilidade da taxa de respostas em FI

“…No geral, esses resultados corroboram os encontrados em outros estudos que indicavam que os desempenhos podem ser diferentes em função do reforçador empregado (e.g., COSTA et al, 2008;MACE et al, 1997;SALGADO;2007;WARD, 1976;WEINER, 1972 Observações não sistemáticas realizadas durante a coleta de dados indicaram que a baixa taxa de respostas inicial talvez seja devido ao "comportamento exploratório" (cliques fora do botão de respostas) que alguns participantes emitiram no início da primeira sessão experimental. No Tipo B, a taxa de respostas é relativamente alta, mas é intercalada por taxas baixas em alguns IRIs, com padrões de break-and-run no terço final da sessão (U3 e U11 -indicado na figura pela letra a).…”

“…Esse efeito também pode ser visto nas Figuras 2 e 3 com as taxas gerais de respostas, conforme descrito anteriormente. PERONE, 1998;SCHOENFELD, 1960;JOHNSTON;PENNYPACKER 1993;KAZDIN, 1982;SIDMAN, 1960) COSTA et al, 2008;MACE et al, 1997;SALGADO, 2007;WARD, 1976;WEINER, 1972 (BARON et al, 1969;BUSKIST et al, 1980;BUSKIST et al, 1981;COSTA et al, 2005;COSTA et al, 2007;OKOUCHI, 2002;WEINER, 1969 Serão realizadas 20 sessões experimentais em uma sala do CCB na UEL. As sessões serão diárias (exceto finais de semana e feriados), realizadas individualmente e terão a duração aproximada de 30 minutos cada.…”

What are we doing when we translate from quantitative models?

“…For the reader who is interested in this point, a useful exercise is to examine each of the empirical articles cited by Waltz and Follette (2009) In some hybrid cases, quantitative models generate unique predictions that need not be tested through quantitative methods. For example, Mace, Mauro, Boyajian, and Eckert (1997) conducted an investigation to determine whether the use of highquality reinforcement improved the efficacy of an intervention, based on behavioral momentum theory, to improve compliance with requests. The study was prompted by theoretical work integrating momentum with models of operant choice (for a summary, see Nevin & Grace, 2000).…”