Further evaluation of the high‐probability instructional sequence with and without programmed reinforcement

Abstract

In 2 experiments, we examined the effects of programmed reinforcement for compliance with high-probability (high-p) instructions on compliance with low-probability (low-p) instructions. In Experiment 1, we compared the high-p sequence with and without programmed reinforcement (i.e., edible items) for compliance with high-p instructions. Results showed that the high-p sequence increased compliance with low-p instructions only when compliance with high-p instructions was followed by reinforcement. In Experiment 2, we examined the role of reinforcer quality by delivering a lower quality reinforcer (praise) for compliance with high-p instructions. Results of Experiment 2 showed that the high-p sequence with lower quality reinforcement did not improve compliance with low-p instructions; the addition of a higher quality reinforcer (i.e., edible items) contingent on compliance with high-p instructions did increase compliance with low-p instructions.

The effects of high‐p and low‐p instruction similarity on compliance among young children

“…Of the five applications in which the high‐p sequence was efficacious in increasing low‐p compliance the delivery of an edible item (identified via a preference assessment), contingent upon compliance with each high‐p instruction, was necessary. These data are consistent with previous research (Wilder, Majdalany, Sturkie, & Smeltz, ), suggesting that the high‐p sequence is more efficacious when edible items, instead of praise, are delivered contingent upon compliance with high‐p instructions. In the current study, no separate assessment was conducted to determine participant preference for praise or the extent to which praise functioned as a reinforcer.…”

Effects of response independent delivery of preferred items and the high‐probability instructional sequence on compliance

“…Recently, some authors have empirically examined the individual components that may be responsible for the effects of the high‐ p sequence (Normand, Kestner, & Jessel, ; Pitts & Dymond, ; Wilder, Majdalany, Sturkie, & Smeltz, ; Zuluaga & Normand, ). Generally, these studies suggest that a short inter‐instruction interval (Pitts & Dymond, ; Wilder et al, ), the delivery of preferred items for compliance with high‐ p instructions (Wilder et al, ; Zuluaga & Normand, ), and the presence of stimuli correlated with reinforcement for compliance with low‐ p instructions when delivering high‐ p instructions (Normand et al, ) are important components of the procedure. Interestingly, other studies in this general line of research suggest that the delivery of high‐ p instructions themselves may not be necessary to increase compliance (Bullock & Normand, ; Normand & Beaulieu, ).…”

Recent research on the high‐probability instructional sequence: A brief review

“…In a replication of Zuluaga and Normand (), Pitts and Dymond () compared the effects of the high‐p sequence with programmed reinforcement (praise and edibles following compliance with high‐p instructions) and the high‐p sequence without programmed reinforcement (no praise or edibles following compliance with high‐p instructions) and found that compliance with low‐p instructions was greatest when programmed reinforcement was delivered contingent on compliance with high‐p instructions. Wilder et al () extended the findings of Pitts and Dymond by examining the effects of reinforcement quality following compliance with high‐p instructions. Specifically, the experimenters compared praise (a less preferred stimulus for the participants) with edibles (a more preferred stimulus for the participants) when reinforcing compliance with high‐p instructions.…”

“…The high‐p sequence has been shown to be effective with a variety of populations, including participants ranging in age from preschoolers to adults, as well as individuals with various diagnoses (Lee, ). It has also been used to increase compliance with a variety of low‐p instruction categories, including academic instructions (Lee, Belfiore, Scheeler, Hua, & Smith, ), social instructions (Wilder, Majdalany, Sturkie, & Smeltz, ), instructions to increase food acceptance (Penrod, Gardella, & Fernand, ), and instructions related to medical tasks (Riviere, Becquet, Peltret, Facon, & Darcheville, ). Advantages of the high‐p sequence over other methods of increasing compliance are that it doesn't require physical guidance and has been socially validated in an early childhood setting (Jung, Sainato, & Davis, ).…”

“…In addition to investigating the delivery of reinforcement for compliance with high‐p instructions, Pitts and Dymond () and Wilder et al () also examined the duration of the inter‐instruction interval (i.e., the time between each high‐p instruction as well as the last high‐p instruction and the low‐p instruction). Most of the existing high‐p research has not specified the interval used, yet it may be an important factor in the effectiveness of the sequence.…”