The Effect of Different Combinations of Continuous and Partial Reinforcement Schedules on Response Persistence in Mentally Handicapped Children

Abstract

Two experiments investigated the effects on persistence of behaviour in extinction of different training procedures, using mentally handicapped boys who were trained to place objects of different shapes into matching holes in a box for sensory reinforcers. In Experiment 1 two subjects were given three training procedures: (i) a C-C procedure, consisting of 80 trials of continuous reinforcement (CRF); (ii)a P-P procedure, consisting of 80 trials of variable ratio reinforcement (VR5); and (iii) a C-P procedure, consisting of 40 trials on CRF followed by 40 on VR5. Extinction occurred most quickly after C-C training, next quickest after P-P training. In experiment 2 with four boys, C-P training of 160 trials of CRF, followed by 120 trials of VR5, produced quicker extinction than P-P training of 280 trials of VR5 reinforcement. The implications of these results for training persistent behaviour in mentally handicapped people are discussed.

The Use of Errorless Learning Procedures in Teaching People With a Learning Disability: A Critical Review

“…There exists a wide variety of research data which suggests that once continuous reinforcement is withdrawn, the acquired behaviour quickly extinguishes (Kazdin & Polster, 1973;Koegel & Rincover, 1977; Kazdin, 1984). Although it has been advocated that, as soon as a behaviour is acquired on a CRF schedule, reinforcement should be switched to an intermittent schedule, there have been a number of difficulties with this procedure (Tierney & Smith 1988; Dehn, 1969). Dehn (1969) found that the smoothness of transfer from continuous to intermittent schedules is a key factor in the success of the procedure.…”

“…Research carried out with children with learning disabilities (Tierney & Smith, 1988), demonstrated that responding on an intermittent schedule during the maintenance phase of a training programme was more likely if initial response acquisition was programmed using a partial schedule than if response acquisition was initially programmed using a CRF schedule and then switched to an intermittent schedule (Tierney & Smith, 1988). This suggests that even from the beginnings of teaching a discrimination, not all correct responses should be reinforced if optimal response generalisation is to be attained.…”