Parameters of reinforcement and response‐class hierarchies

Abstract

Shabani, Carr, and Petursdottir (2009) examined the effects of a response-response relation (effort) on the development of a response-class hierarchy using a laboratory model. Response-reinforcer relations may have similar influences. Using a similar translational approach, we examined the effects of reinforcer rate, quality, delay, and magnitude in a series of separate experiments conducted with 8 individuals with intellectual disabilities. Response-class hierarchies emerged along the dimension of rate for 3 of 6 subjects, quality for 5 of 5 subjects, delay for 2 of 8 subjects, and magnitude for 5 of 6 subjects.

Preferences for token exchange‐production schedules: Effects of task difficulty and token‐production schedules

“…For example, the immediacy or delay to reinforcement can influence preference for concurrently available schedules of reinforcement (e.g., Madden & Johnson, ). The duration and quality of reinforcement (e.g., Beavers, Iwata, & Gregory, ; Hoch, McComas, Johnson, Faranda, & Guenther, ; Horner & Day, ; Neef, Bicard, & Endo, ; Neef et al, ) and the duration and timing of delays to reinforcement (Leon, Borrero, & DeLeon, ) can be manipulated to increase preference for delayed or immediate schedules of reinforcement. Furthermore, the response effort (e.g., Lerman, Addison, & Kodak, ; Neef et al, ; Perrin & Neef, ) of the required responses (e.g., completing easy versus difficult tasks) during concurrently available schedules of reinforcement may influence preference for delayed and immediate reinforcement schedules.…”

Mand Training

“…For example, a child with ASD may request a toy from a peer by handing him or her a picture card (i.e., the new mand) and, if handing the card fails to produce the toy, then the child may move closer to the peer and reach (i.e., the previously existing mand) for the toy. Recently, investigators have conducted basic research and developed laboratory models to examine the concept of a response-class formation and response-class hierarchies when teaching new responses to preschool children with and without developmental disabilities (Shabani, Carr, & Petursdottir, 2009), to college students (Mendres & Borrero, 2010), and to adults with intellectual disabilities (Beavers, Iwata, & Gregory, 2014). The findings of the basic research studies on response-class formation and response-class hierarchies serve as a basis for understanding how various aspects of different strategies (e.g., utility of extinction as an intervention procedure) can be implemented in applied settings to address behaviors of social significance.…”

Assessment and treatment of public disrobing using noncontingent reinforcement and competing stimuli.

“…Public disrobing may occasion or co-occur with additional problem behavior, including inappropriate sexual behavior, public urination or defecation, or other disruptive behavior (e.g., Carlson, Luiselli, Slyman, & Markowski, 2008). In such cases, disrobing may be one of several inappropriate behaviors within a response class hierarchy in which all response class members produce similar effects on the environment and may occur within a specific temporal sequence (Beavers, Iwata, & Gregory, 2014). Notably, response class hierarchies may prevent effective assessment or treatment of other forms of problem behavior, because the reinforcement of specific topographies of problem behavior early in the hierarchy prevents the occurrence of other clinically significant topographies of problem behavior.…”