Reinforcement and Aversive Control in the Modification of Behavior

Abstract

i haviors of children who function productively in a regular-classroom setting are ordinarily under the control of a wide variety of generalized reinforcers appropriate to that setting. Solving problems, completing assignments, and achieving success at academic endeavors generally function as powerful reinforcing events which maintain academic behavior. Such behaviors are further strengthened by praise, often accompanying appropriate academic behavior, administered by parents or teachers.1 1 It is not surprising, then, that the behavior of most school children is responsive to traditional educational procedures and methods even when no systematic efforts are directed toward gaining behavioral control.The °'acting-out&dquo; child, however, with all his accompanying academic disabilities, often misses out on these avenues of positive reinforcement which are common to the educational setting. Reinforcements for appropriate academic behavior are rarely available for him. The low probability of success or praise being associated with his academic behavior decreases the frequency of appropriate academic behavior in a spiraling process; e.g., the fewer the reinforcements, the less academic work attempted; the less work attempted the fewer the reinforcements. In addition, many of the social behaviors demonstrated by such children are aversive and thereby preclude or severely limit the probability of the child being positively reinforced by teachers or peers.When social reinforcement is available, there is some evidence which suggests that adult praise is aversive 1 R.

Suggested behavioral interventions in the classroom to assist students prenatally exposed to drugs

“…The academic and social behaviors of children who have functioned well in a regular classroom have usually been under the control of a wide variety of reinforcers appropriate to that setting (Mattos, Mattson, Walker, & Buckley, 1969). Children with behavioral diculties, however, often miss out on the natural reinforcers because of academic disabilities and aversive social behaviors (Mattos et al, 1969).…”

“…The academic and social behaviors of children who have functioned well in a regular classroom have usually been under the control of a wide variety of reinforcers appropriate to that setting (Mattos, Mattson, Walker, & Buckley, 1969). Children with behavioral diculties, however, often miss out on the natural reinforcers because of academic disabilities and aversive social behaviors (Mattos et al, 1969). Where traditional methods have failed, the token economy system has often proven successful (Kazdin, 1977;McLaughlin & Williams, 1988;O'Leary & Drabman, 1971;Williams, Williams, & McLaughlin, 1991a;1991b).…”

Effect of two free-time reinforcement procedures on academic performance in a class of behavior problem children.

“…In a series of single-subject manipulations, Becker, Madsen, Arnold, and Thomas (1967) found that a combination of ignoring deviant behavior and reinforcing incompatible appropriate behavior was most effective in classroom management. Mattos, Mattson, Walker, and Buckley (1969) reported that reinforcement of appropriate behavior and punishment of deviant behaviors with fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade behavior problem children was effective in producing behavioral change. Such studies have aptly demonstrated that attention, lack of attention, or punishment delivered contingently upon a response can be effective in altering the frequency of classroom behaviors.…”