Automatic Reinforcement &EBD Assessment

Repp Ch. 7 & 10

Ch. 7 – Automatic Reinforcement

1. Most behavior: a. Maintained by socially mediated reinforcers (attn, escape,

tangibles) b. Other behavior – respondent behavior, adjunctive

behavior, intermittent reinforcement, behavior from brain damage

Adjunctive behavior: (SIB) schedule induced behavior Polydipsia in rats-NCR food FT 1minute will drink 4X body weight Schedule Induced Aggression: Pigeons under large

ratios(FR100) will attack other pigeons to point of deathc. Automatic reinforcement: the reinforcing effects within the

organism (not socially mediated). Self Stim Ex: flapping finger in eye vs. eye contact (look at conc. schedules)

Theories

Social deprivation early in life (animals raised in isolation will emit SIB and sterotypies)

Endorphin release as positive reinforcement or reduce pain (endogenous opioids very similar to exogenous opioids (morphine).

Activate release to produce pleasure sensation (positive reinforcement)

Attenuate pain(negative reinforcement) Naltrexone study (opioid antagonist)

Theories

Neurodevelopmental dysfunction – changes in dopamine system may produce SS Some drugs produce it – Innovar, alcohol

Seizures – frontal lobe

Arousal theory SS increases arousal in low stim environment SS decreases arousal in over stimulating env. SS modulates over and under

Theories

Sensory/perceptual stimuli (auditory, tactile, gustatory, vestibular, visual) Studies have shown extinction-like effects when sensory stimuli are

blocked

Related to operant contingencies Superstitious conditioning “Frustrated” behavior after reinforcer removal - latter is EO

Theories

Adjunctive behavior SS increased with FI interval in a Conc FI FI

Respondent behavior as reaction to loud noise or pain, then comes under the control of operant contingencies

Automatic Reinforcement

Production of stimuli by the response itself without intervention of people

Private events (stimuli and responses). Potential problems? Increase in motivation absent social contingencies

“Sight of dogs” example in which looking at dogs is reinforced. Vaughn and Michael(1982) manipulated deprivation by blocking access to dogs.(babies too)

Automatic Reinforcement

Automatic reinforcement – is preferable to stereotypy as it focuses attention on controlling variables (both positive and negative) Positive(sensory stimulation) Negative(pain attenuation)

3 Kinds of Behavior Assessment

1. Indirect: “Tell me” method (interviews, checklist, rating scales MAS, FAST, )

2. Descriptive direct observation: “Show me” method in natural environment

3. FA: Systematic manipulations. Initially assumed that behavior that occurred in the alone condition was maintained by automatic reinforcement; however, the behavior could function as a mand for attention. (Examples with QK and parents coming running into room)

Extend the alone condition to make sure nothing else is occurring-other variables Sometimes a default if social reinforcers don’t seem to be involved (interviews, etc)

Assessment

How to ID SS: See box on page 125 Insensitivity to social reinforcers (rule out att, escape, tangibles) Alternative explanations of undifferentiated data:

Thin schedules of social Odd reinforcer (certain item) Adjunctive behavior Multiple control - Behavioral persistence in absence of social interaction

Assessment

Rating scales not a good source – questions don’t address it (“occurs repeatedly over and over in the same way”) Also low inter-rater reliability (QK ex)

Direct observation is better

Best is seeing if SS occurs in alone condition Manipulate public consequence (Rincover studies) This study

identified the maintaining reinforcer for palate spinning was auditory; however, it could have been visual. Other ex: flipping light switch could be visual or auditory.

Hand mouthing could be maintained by Social reinforcement(attention) in (Vollmer et al., 1993) or escape(Mace,et al. 1987)

Assessment

Sensory extinction procedures: anesthetizing the hand

FT reversal phases using sensory stimuli (have light turn off and on non-contingently)

Problem – Stimuli may not be easily identified, and if so, may not be manipulated Able to substitute reinforcers to decrease it (rocking chair to decrease

rocking)

Assessment

Present other reinforcers that will maintain behavior and decrease SS – does not have to be functionally equivalent or in same modality-Substitutability- watching bright lights vs. hand mouthing(QK-JG example).

Effects of social contingencies must be ruled out before concluding SS

Treatments – MO’s

Deprivation(positive reinforcement) and aversive stimuli (negative reinforcement); also, drugs

Examples: NCR vibratory decreased head banging; self stim items freely available decreased SIB(food with PICA, large rubber balls for hand mouthing); Note JG with edibles/PICA. SS occur in barren environments(crib vs. outside crib). Ex: AMA school obs. (rate of hand flapping when alone vs. working with teacher)

Treatments – MO’s

Self stim items available; enriched environments; satiation of specific reinforcer (Rast studies with Rumination consumed large amounts of food); exercise (53 exercise sessions over 16-week period with DD male reduced body rocking. Reid(93)-reduction following running but not walking(endorphin release).

Extinction

Extinction: Attenuation or elimination of stimulation directly produced by the response. Rincover studies (Sensory EXT: carpet on surface to reduce auditory

stimulation produced by spinning plates, disconnect light switch(can’t turn lights on/off…QK(PB and BO), sticks(metal pins in sticks to would not “snap”!). Drugs(block uptake endorphins. ACH)

Extinction

Contingent protective gear (but could be punishment; or could allow new contingent stimuli that could be punishment)

Limitation: requires ID maintaining reinforcer, but hard to do as behavior may produce multiple forms of stimulation (face slapping auditory and tactile. EX: BG deaf/blind boy engaged in face slapping(visual and auditory); also, may be impractical to eliminate stimuli (sticks!)…

Differential reinforcement

DRA(attn contingent on toy play reduction in hand mouthing), DRO (access to variety of other self-scratching, DRL (food for lower response rates of SS-rocking)

Limits: DRO/DRL don’t teach new behaviors; they also deprive P of important stimuli à ext bursts, new behavior that produces even more bizarre stimuli

Response Blocking

Protective gear to prevent response or just block stimuli (EX: Brian and the cans..fading..)

Punishment

Time-Out

Restraint

Visual screening(cloth or material over head to limit visual stim. access)

Overcorrection

Discrete stimuli (shock, lemon juice, water mist)

Ch. 10

Assessement-Based Interventions for Children

with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

Characteristics of EBD

Starts at 6, but services not provided until later

Single parent homes (1/2), IQ in low average (86), deficiencies in academics, poor social skills, segregated education

School dropouts (50%)

Problems later in life, crimes, employment problems

Assessment-based interventions

Students were found to have inapp. behavior linked to certain events Peer failed to respond to greetings) – Ss were shown tapes and given feedback about better ways to handle

such situations

Inapp. behavior with tasks Increase in tasks with <40% correct and less with tasks >60% correct.

CaseABC data, interview teachers, interview kid

Develop hypothesesBetter behavior with: no handwriting, problem solving

instead of drills, brief tasks, reminders to attend, and in study carrel)

Test hypothesesABA designs with % of intervals with on-task behavior)

Incorporate into Tx -used MB design across subjects

Makes case for student assisted interviews (asks questions about attention, escape, tangibles)

Distal EO issue How to study

Correlation in ABC data vs. causality in EAB

Lag Sequential Analysis

Identify variable associated with target behavior Correlate behavior with coded A & C to calculate

conditional probability-this analysis quantifies the degree to which the A &C is related to the behavior

One study showed high probability of inapp. behavior given teacher attention Fixed by having teacher do DRI and planned ignoring

Cooper study – different combinations of hard vs. easy; low vs. high teacher attention

Choice making can decrease problem behaviors - explain yoking procedure for tasks

Lag Sequential Analysis

See Lerman, D.C.,& Iwata, B.A., (1993)

Descriptive and experimental analyses of variables maintaining self-injurious behavior. (page 299)

Example:

A: Intervals containing SIB that followed an antecedent event

Intervals scored with SIB

C: Intervals containing SIB that preceded a consequent event

Intervals scored with SIB

You can calculate instances in which task was presented and aggression occurred as well as the non occurrence –the probability that given task difficulty (easy hard), attention, etc.

Conditional Probabilities: See Vollmer(2001). Identifying possible contingencies during descriptive analyses of sever behavior disorder. JABA, 34, 269-287. This graph shows the examples of potentially positive contingency values for instruction, low-attention and low-attention EOs.

Implications

Determine the likelihood the behavior will occur given certain antecedent and consequent events.

Must consider reinforcement parameters for appropriate vs. problematic behavior in order to shift response allocation (rate of reinforcement, delay, duration, magnitude, quality, aversive stimulation/response cost)

Thus making sure that you increase reinforcement for appropriate behavior and decrease rate of reinforcement for inappropriate behaviors.

Review Matching Law!!!

Conduct reinforcer analysis-