2001
DOI: 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fixed‐time Schedule Effects as a Function of Baseline Reinforcement Rate

Abstract: Using an arbitrary response, we evaluated fixed-time (FT) schedules that were either similar or dissimilar to a baseline (response-dependent) reinforcement schedule and extinction. Results suggested that both FT schedules and extinction resulted in decreased responding. However, FT schedules were more effective in reducing response rates if the FT reinforcer rate was dissimilar to baseline reinforcer rates. Possible reasons for this difference were evaluated with data analysis methods designed to identify adve… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
36
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
6
36
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is not known whether the treatment goal could have been achieved under the DTL condition without additional treatment components that might have rendered the intervention more labor intensive or restrictive (e.g., Fisher et al, 2000;Hagopian et al, 1998). The potential effects of a prolonged schedule-thinning process are not known, but could conceivably include nontherapeutic effects, such as adventitious reinforcement of problem behavior (Ringdahl, Vollmer, Borrero, & Connell, 2001;Vollmer et al, 1997).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is not known whether the treatment goal could have been achieved under the DTL condition without additional treatment components that might have rendered the intervention more labor intensive or restrictive (e.g., Fisher et al, 2000;Hagopian et al, 1998). The potential effects of a prolonged schedule-thinning process are not known, but could conceivably include nontherapeutic effects, such as adventitious reinforcement of problem behavior (Ringdahl, Vollmer, Borrero, & Connell, 2001;Vollmer et al, 1997).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, once they had experienced a history of reinforcement under the MULT + rules conditions, the schedule of reinforcement continued to control responding in the absence of the schedule-correlated stimuli (i.e., when the MIX condition was reinstated). Future research should continue to determine the conditions under which different histories enhance or compromise the influence of prevailing contingencies (see also Ringdahl, Vollmer, Borrero, & Connell, 2001). …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3. Noncontingent reinforcement must be presented more frequently than the baseline schedule of reinforcement (Ringdahl et al 2001;Kahng et al 2000a, b). 4.…”
Section: Noncontingent Reinforcementmentioning
confidence: 99%