203

JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 1998, 31, 203–210 NUMBER 2 (SUMMER 1998)

USING A SELF-CONTROL TRAININGPROCEDURE TO INCREASEAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR

MARK R. DIXON AND LINDA J. HAYES

UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA

AND

LISA M. BINDER, SHARON MANTHEY,CONNIE SIGMAN, AND DARLENE M. ZDANOWSKI

TRINITY SERVICES

The present study evaluated a technique for teaching self-control and increasing desirablebehaviors among adults with developmental disabilities. Results showed that when par-ticipants were initially given the choice between an immediate smaller reinforcer and alarger delayed reinforcer, all participants repeatedly chose the smaller reinforcer. Concur-rent fixed-duration/progressive-duration reinforcement schedules then were introduced inwhich initially both the smaller and larger reinforcers were available immediately. There-after, progressively increasing delays were introduced for the schedule associated with thelarger reinforcer only. When initial short-duration requirements for access to the largerreinforcer were gradually increased, participants repeatedly selected the larger reinforcer,thereby demonstrating increased self-control.

DESCRIPTORS: self-control, impulsivity, choice, developmental disabilities, hu-mans

Self-control is defined as behavior that re-sults in access to a larger reinforcer after alonger delay, rather than impulsive behaviorthat results in a small reinforcer after a short-er or no delay (Ainslie, 1974; Rachlin &Green, 1972; Schweitzer & Sulzer-Azaroff,1988). The use of the term self-control in noway implies that the variables that controlresponding are internal. Rather, it has arisenout of a colloquial vocabulary in which itsspecific meaning in operant research is theresponse of choosing a delayed larger rein-forcer over an immediate smaller reinforcer.

Studies using both nonhuman and humanparticipants in the operant laboratory havedemonstrated that an important variable

The authors thank Art Dykstra, Jr., Executive Di-rector, and the many staff members of Trinity Servicesfor their assistance in the conducting of this research.

Correspondence and requests for reprints should beaddressed to Mark R. Dixon, Department of Psychol-ogy, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada 89557.

that influences an organism’s ‘‘choice’’ of alarger reinforcer is the amount of time thatmust pass before its delivery (Davison &McCarthy, 1988). With shorter delays im-posed on the larger reinforcer, choices aremore often made for access to that reinforc-er, whereas with longer delays, choices aremore often made for access to the smallerreinforcer (Hyten, Madden, & Field, 1994;Mazur, 1987). Nonhumans and childrenhave often been found to behave impulsivelyin experimental situations (Logue & Pena-Correal, 1984; Mazur & Logue, 1978),whereas adult humans often exhibit moreself-control (Logue, Pena-Correal, Rodri-guez, & Kabela, 1986). It has been suggestedthat adult humans’ increased preference fordelayed larger reinforcers may somehow berelated to their advanced verbal abilities(Logue et al., 1986; Schweitzer & Sulzer-Azaroff, 1988).

In addition to the role that verbal behav-

204 MARK R. DIXON et al.

ior may play in preference for delayed rein-forcement, specific histories of reinforcementmay influence choices made between im-mediate and delayed alternatives. For ex-ample, Ferster (1953) demonstrated thatwhen pigeons, responding on a variable-in-terval schedule, were exposed to a contin-gency change in which long delays betweenresponses and reinforcement were suddenlyimposed, response rates on those schedulesdeclined. Yet, if the delays were initiallyshort and then increased gradually, the birdsshowed no reduction in response rates. Ma-zur and Logue (1978) also demonstratedthat reinforcement history was an importantvariable for increasing self-control. Theyshowed that when pigeons that were initiallyexposed to both large and small reinforcersof equal delays were exposed to gradually de-creasing delays to the smaller reinforcer (un-til zero delay), the birds chose the larger re-inforcer more often than did a control groupthat had been exposed only to a choice be-tween the small immediate and the large de-layed reinforcer. A study with humans em-ploying a progressive delay procedure similarto that of Ferster (1953) was conducted bySchweitzer and Sulzer-Azaroff (1988). Re-sults showed that an increase in self-controldeveloped in impulsive children by initiallydelivering both small and large reinforcersimmediately, and then gradually increasingthe delay to delivery of the larger reinforcer.

Although self-control may be strength-ened by gradually increasing the delay to thelarger reinforcer, as those delays become con-siderably longer, impulsive behavior may be-gin to recur (Ragotzy, Blakely, & Poling,1988). A method used to postpone or pre-vent this recurrence of implusivity has beento require the participant to perform dis-tracting activities such as talking or singing(Mischel, Ebbesen, & Zeiss, 1972). Similarresults were also obtained in the basic labo-ratory by Grosch and Neuringer (1981),who required pigeons to peck on a disk at

the back of the experimental chamber dur-ing delay periods. The pigeons continuedthe distracting activity (pecking the disk inthe back of the chamber) even when it wasplaced on extinction, suggesting that the ac-tivity in some way helped the subjects bettertolerate the delay associated with the largerreinforcer.

In an applied setting, the selection of ben-eficial distracter activities that occur in con-junction with a gradually increasing delay toa larger, more advantageous reinforcer maypotentially increase both tolerance for longerdelays and appropriate responding of othersorts. It is often the case that in training fa-cilities for individuals with developmentaldisabilities, many individuals choose not toemit the programmed desired responses(e.g., participation in group activity, cookinga meal) but rather will emit less desirable,alternative responses (e.g., self-stimulation,escape from a demanding situation). Al-though these alternative responses may beless desirable to staff, these responses may bepreferred by an individual with disabilitiesbecause they produce more immediate re-inforcement than the target response does(e.g., immediate self-stimulation vs. a pay-check at the end of the week).

Two potential strategies from the self-con-trol literature that may increase the likeli-hood that individuals with developmentaldisabilities will choose to emit the appropri-ate target response are (a) to correlate it withan immediate large reinforcer initially andthen gradually fade in a delay interval (e.g.,Mazur & Logue, 1978; Schweitzer & Sulzer-Azaroff, 1988) and (b) to require the indi-vidual to perform a distracting activity dur-ing the delay interval (e.g., Grosch & Neu-ringer, 1981; Mischel et al., 1972).

The present study examined the effects ofconcurrent fixed-duration/progressive-dura-tion schedules of reinforcement to teach self-control and increase targeted behaviors of 3adults with developmental disabilities. First,

205SELF-CONTROL

naturalistic baseline data were recorded tomeasure the strength of the target responsein the absence of a programmed competingsource of reinforcement. Second, a choicebaseline was conducted to measure target re-sponse strength when that target responseproduced a large, delayed reinforcer that wasin competition with a smaller, immediate re-inforcer. Third, a self-control training pro-cedure was implemented for the purpose ofteaching individuals to tolerate delayed re-inforcement so that they (a) displayed theappropriate target response and (b) receivedthe larger reinforcer.

METHOD

Participants, Target Behaviors, andSettings

Duke. Duke was a 43-year-old man withmild mental retardation. He was verbal, hadno motor impairments, had diagnoses of sei-zure disorder and developmental languagedisorder, and was on Felbatal (600 mg/day),Zoloft (50 mg/day), and Depakate (500 mg/day) medications. Duke was selected becausehe frequently left his seat and did not com-plete the day’s activity. Therefore, his targetbehavior was to functionally manipulate thematerials of the day’s activity. Sessions wereconducted in the natural environment of hisday-training facility room, which containeda table and two different amounts of cross-word puzzles (one and three). Crosswordpuzzles were selected as reinforcers for Dukebased on staff interview of preferred items.Six individuals with developmental disabili-ties were also present in the room.

Betty. Betty was a 29-year-old womanwith profound mental retardation. She hada verbal repertoire of approximately 75American sign language signs, no motor im-pairments, and medical diagnoses of atypicalorganic brain syndrome, bipolar disorder,and epilepsy. She was on Risperedol (5 mg)and Tegretol (1,200 mg) medications. Betty

was selected because of her inconsistent per-formance on the targeted behavior (specifiedin her treatment plan) of sitting in her seatconstantly for 5 min. Sessions were con-ducted in the natural environment of herday-training facility room, which containeda table and two different amounts of soda(small cup and large cup). Soda was the se-lected reinforcer for Betty based on staff in-terview. Six individuals with developmentaldisabilities were also present in the room.

Joan. Joan was a 27-year-old woman withmild mental retardation. She was verbal, hada minor motor impairment in her legs thatrequired the use of arm crutches, and wasnot on any medication. Joan was selectedbecause of her inconsistent performance onthe targeted behavior (specified in her treat-ment plan) of continually exercising witharm bands. Sessions were conducted in thenatural environment of her bedroom, whichcontained a bed, table and chair, and twodifferent cards (3 in. by 5 in.) (one with thenumber 1 written on it and the other withthe number 5). These cards represented thenumber of minutes of one-on-one attentionthat would be made available to Joan as re-inforcement for her behavior. Due to Joan’shigh level of verbal ability, the relation be-tween the cards and the consequences ofeach choice behavior was verbally describedto her. One-to-one attention was the selectedreinforcer for Joan based on staff interview.

Interobserver Agreement

A second observer was present during10% of all sessions for each participant.Choice behavior was recorded by eitherchecking the column on a data sheet for‘‘smaller reinforcer’’ or another column for‘‘larger reinforcer.’’ An agreement was re-corded if both observers checked the samecolumn. Whole-interval recording was usedfor response duration; observers recorded theduration of the target response using hand-held timers, watches, or clocks. A duration

206 MARK R. DIXON et al.

agreement was recorded if both observersagreed that the participant was still engagedin the target behavior at the end of the pre-specified interval. Interobserver agreementwas calculated by dividing the number ofagreements by the number of agreementsplus disagreements of both observers andmultiplying by 100%. Resulting percentagesfor both participant choice behavior and re-sponse duration were 100%.

Experimental Design

A multiple baseline across participants de-sign was used in which all sessions were con-ducted by direct service staff members undertraining of one of the authors. First, a nat-uralistic baseline was introduced as the rel-evant control condition for determiningwhether treatment resulted in increases inengagement. Second, a choice baseline wasintroduced as the relevant control conditionfor determining whether treatment resultedin increases in self-control. Third, a self-con-trol training treatment condition was intro-duced in an attempt to increase tolerance forlarger, more delayed reinforcers.

Procedure

Naturalistic baseline. Sessions began whenthe staff member verbally prompted the par-ticipant to engage in the target behavior.The staff member observed and recorded theduration of the target behavior for each cli-ent for approximately 20 sessions. No ad-ditional prompts, instructions, feedback, orreinforcements were delivered to the partic-ipant during these sessions to control for theeffects of prompts on target behavior emis-sion. Each session ended after (a) 1 min fol-lowing the initial prompt if the target be-havior was not emitted, (b) a greater than30-s period during which the target behaviorwas absent, or (c) the completion of thespecified duration requirement for the targetbehavior.

Choice baseline. Sessions began when the

staff member verbally instructed each partic-ipant to make a choice between the smalleramount of the reinforcer delivered immedi-ately or the larger amount of the reinforcerdelivered contingent on the desired durationof the specific target behavior. This was doneby presenting the two quantities of the re-inforcer (Duke and Betty) or the two cardsrepresenting the reinforcer (Joan) directly infront of the individual in random position,and then asking, ‘‘Do you want X (small re-inforcer) now (with no target behavior re-quired), or do you want Y (large reinforcer)after doing Z (the target behavior for thedesired duration)?’’ One choice trial was giv-en once per session for five to seven sessions.No other instructions, prompts, or feedbackwere given to the participant regarding thechoice that he or she had made. If the largerreinforcer was chosen and the target behav-ior was not engaged in for the requiredlength of time, the participant received nei-ther reinforcer, and the session was termi-nated. Sessions ended after the participant’sconsumption of the reinforcer (Betty) or af-ter the delivery of the reinforcer (Duke andJoan). As before, each session would alsohave ended after (a) 1 min following the ini-tial prompt if the target behavior was notemitted, (b) a greater than 30-s period dur-ing which the target behavior was absent, or(c) the completion of the specified durationrequirement for the target behavior.

Self-control training. Each session beganby instructing the participant to make achoice of receiving either the small or thelarge reinforcer with no work requirementfor either item. When it was established thatthe large reinforcer was consistently chosen,a gradual progressive-duration contingencywas introduced on the larger reinforcer. Thestaff member instructed the participant bysaying, ‘‘Do you want X now, or do youwant Y after doing Z for a little while?’’When the participant chose to engage in thetarget behavior for a desired duration to gain

207SELF-CONTROL

access to the larger reinforcer for at least twoof the last three sessions, the required du-ration criterion was gradually increased. Ifthe participant chose the smaller reinforcerduring the first session following an incre-ment in duration, that increment was re-duced by half during the next session. Du-ration increments were specifically made insmall amounts to prevent participants fromdiscriminating that any increments had beenmade. Staff members were given some leni-ency as to the criteria for duration incre-ments or decrements (when necessary) in or-der to tailor the intervention to the specificparticipant. No additional prompts, instruc-tions, feedback, or reinforcements were de-livered to the participant during these ses-sions. As before, each session would alsohave ended after (a) 1 min following the ini-tial prompt if the target behavior was notemitted, (b) a greater than 30-s period dur-ing which the target behavior was absent, or(c) the completion of the specified durationrequirement for the target behavior. The du-ration requirement of the target behaviorcontinued to be increased until the initialdesired level of performance had been at-tained by each participant.

RESULTS

Figure 1 shows performance during thenaturalistic baseline, choice baseline, andself-control training conditions for all partic-ipants. All participants’ targeted behaviorsstayed at or below baseline levels during thechoice baseline condition. They consistentlychose a small, immediate reinforcer ratherthan engage in the target behavior for thefull desired duration for access to the largereinforcer. When conditions were changedsuch that both consequences were availableimmediately, all participants chose the largerreinforcer. During the self-control trainingcondition, number of minutes engaged inthe target behavior increased above natural-

istic baseline for all participants, and theycontinued to choose the larger, more delayedreinforcer. No participant ever chose thelarger reinforcer and subsequently failed toengage in the required duration of the targetbehavior. Betty, although she showed a du-ration increase, did not reach the desired tar-get behavior duration (5 min).

DISCUSSION

These results show that by establishing ahistory in which participants are graduallyexposed to increasingly longer delays to de-livery of a larger reinforcer and are requiredto engage in a target behavior during thatdelay, both self-control and engagement in atarget behavior may be increased. Thesefindings further support those of Ferster(1953), Mazur and Logue (1978), andSchweitzer and Sulzer-Azaroff (1988), whodemonstrated that gradual changes in con-tingencies may increase self-control in bothhuman and nonhuman subjects. The presentstudy’s participants were similarly exposed togradually changing contingencies in the pro-gressive delay condition. In this condition,very slight increases in both delay and re-sponse requirement were necessary to pro-duce the larger, more advantageous reinforc-er.

The present study differed from previousstudies (Mazur & Logue, 1978; Schweitzer& Sulzer-Azaroff, 1988) in that, rather thanrequiring participants to wait to gain accessto the larger reinforcer, they were requiredto engage in a target behavior during thedelay. This engagement may have preventeda resurgence of impulsive behavior as the de-lays became longer, as reported by Mischelet al. (1972) and Grosch and Neuringer(1981). A future study might use an alter-nating treatments design during the progres-sive delay condition to determine whethersuch activities are directly responsible for in-creased choices for delayed reinforcement. In

208 MARK R. DIXON et al.

Figure 1. Session minutes engaged in the target behavior during naturalistic baseline, choice baseline, andself-control training conditions across all participants. The square data points in the naturalistic baseline phaseshow the level of engagement when there were no programmed consequences for the target response. Thecircular data points show the level of engagement during the choice baseline and self-control training conditions;solid circles indicate that the smaller, immediate reinforcer was chosen; open circles indicate that the large,delayed reinforcer was selected.

such a study, one treatment would be iden-tical to that of the present study, in which atarget behavior was required to be emittedduring the delay, whereas the other treat-ment would not impose a response require-ment during the delay.

Differences in treatment success betweenBetty and the other 2 participants may havebeen due to the severity of her disability, herlimited verbal abilities, or both. Because themost dramatic effects of the present inter-

vention were seen in the more verbal partic-ipants, the findings may support claims thatverbal abilities are in part responsible for in-creases in self-control (Logue et al., 1986;Schweitzer & Sulzer-Azaroff, 1988). Futureresearchers may wish to investigate this issueby implementing the present procedure withboth verbal and nonverbal participants.

Although the goal of the present studywas two-fold, namely to increase self-controland engagement in a target behavior, each

209SELF-CONTROL

goal separately may have been accomplishedmore rapidly. When the choice baseline con-dition was introduced, delays for access tothe smaller reinforcer were reduced to zerorather than to naturalistic baseline levels.The availability of the smaller reinforcer de-creased engagement for Betty and possiblyfor Duke. If the primary goal had been toincrease engagement, it might have been bet-ter to remove the choice paradigm and toincrease response requirements gradually togain access to a large reinforcer. Conversely,if the primary goal was to increase self-con-trol, it might have been better to require ahigher probability response during the delayinterval (e.g., a leisure or play activity ratherthan work). In addition, the manipulationof other reinforcer dimensions, such as rateor quality as suggested by Neef, Mace, andShade (1993), may have produced similarincreases in self-control.

In conclusion, a concurrent fixed-dura-tion/progressive-duration schedule of rein-forcement may be an effective technique toteach self-control and increase target behav-iors of individuals with developmental dis-abilities. In addition, by allowing the indi-vidual to choose whether to engage in a de-sired behavior, staff members are facilitatingthat person’s decision making. As serviceproviders strive to provide more inclusive en-vironments for persons with disabilities,such an intervention promotes client self-de-termination while also strengthening life-en-hancing behaviors.

REFERENCES

Ainslie, G. W. (1974). Impulse control in pigeons.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,21, 485–489.

Davison, M., & McCarthy, D. (1988). The matchinglaw. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ferster, C. B. (1953). Sustained behavior under de-

layed reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psy-chology, 45(4), 218–224.

Grosch, J., & Neuringer, A. (1981). Self-control inpigeons under the Mischel paradigm. Journal ofthe Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 35, 3–21.

Hyten, C., Madden, G. J., & Field, D. P. (1994).Exchange delays and impulsive choice in adult hu-mans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Be-havior, 62, 225–233.

Logue, A. W., & Pena-Correal, T. E. (1984). Re-sponding during reinforcement delay in a self-control paradigm. Journal of the ExperimentalAnalysis of Behavior, 41, 267–277.

Logue, A. W., Pena-Correal, T. E., Rodriguez, M. L.,& Kabela, E. (1986). Self-control in adult hu-mans: Variation in positive reinforcer amount anddelay. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Be-havior, 46, 159–173.

Mazur, J. E. (1987). An adjusting procedure forstudying delayed reinforcement. In M. L. Com-mons, J. E. Mazur, J. A. Nevin, & H. Rachlin(Eds.), Quantitative analyses of behavior: Vol. 5.The effect of delay and of intervening events on re-inforcement value (pp. 55–73). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-baum.

Mazur, J. E., & Logue, A. W. (1978). Choice in a‘‘self-control’’ paradigm: Effects of a fading pro-cedure. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Be-havior, 30, 11–17.

Mischel, H. N., Ebbesen, E. B., & Zeiss, A. R.(1972). Cognitive and attentional mechanisms indelay of gratification. Journal of Personality and So-cial Psychology, 16, 204–218.

Neef, N. A., Mace, F. C., & Shade, D. (1993). Im-pulsivity in students with serious emotional dis-turbance: The interactive effects of reinforcer rate,delay, and quality. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 26, 37–52.

Rachlin, H., & Green, L. (1972). Commitment,choice, and self-control. Journal of the Experimen-tal Analysis of Behavior, 17, 15–22.

Ragotzy, S. P., Blakely, E., & Poling, A. (1988). Self-control in mentally retarded adolescents: Choiceas a function of amount and delay of reinforce-ment. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Be-havior, 49, 191–199.

Schweitzer, J. B., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1988). Self-control: Teaching tolerance for delay in impulsivechildren. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Be-havior, 50, 173–186.

Received January 27, 1997Initial editorial decision March 12, 1997Final acceptance February 2, 1998Action Editor, Wayne W. Fisher

210 MARK R. DIXON et al.

STUDY QUESTIONS

1. Describe two complementary strategies that might be used to increase tolerance (preference)for delayed reinforcement.

2. What were the target behaviors and reinforcers for each participant?

3. Describe the naturalistic baseline and choice baseline conditions.

4. Aside from immediacy of reinforcement, what other contingency was in effect during thechoice baseline that favored selecting the small reinforcer?

5. Describe the procedures involved in self-control training.

6. What results were obtained during the choice baseline and self-control training for eachparticipant?

7. Duke’s and Betty’s data showed a decrease in their target behaviors during the choice baseline.How might the authors have prevented this?

8. According to the authors, how might they have increased self-control and increased engage-ment in the target behavior more effectively?

Questions prepared by Jana Lindberg and April Worsdell, The University of Florida