Positive+Reinforcement

Name: Jeremy SPED 843  Dr. Aronin  Spring 2011

 Positive Reinforcement __Description of Intervention Method __ Note: The example of Negative Reinforcement is incorrect. The example shows Chris getting bad grades and Louis taking his television privileges away from him. This is an example of negative punishment as Louis removes television privileges after he gets bad grades in order to reduce the likelihood that Chris will get bad grades in the future. media type="youtube" key="B_9ZZaPDtPk?rel=0" height="390" width="480"

__Types of Students Who Benefit from the Method__  All students have the possibility of benefiting from this intervention.

__Qualifications for Using the Method__  Individuals should be trained in the theory and application of behaviorism.

__Costs of Using the Method__ The cost of this intervention depends upon the reinforcer used.

__Potential Risks with Using the Method__ Although there are certain conditions that can cause rewards to diminish the intrinsically reinforcing value of an activity, rewards do not have a general or pervasive harmful influence on motivation to perform a task. Rewards can have a negative influence on motivation if (a) a high-interest task is involved; (b) rewards are tangible; and (c) rewards are not closely tied to a performance criterion. These problems are typically avoided in behavior-analysis interventions that do not provide reinforcers for behaviors already occurring at an adequate rate, use tangible rewards only as a transition to natural reinforcers, and use clear and specific criteria for reinforcement. [|Source]

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">__Benefits of Using the Method__ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> The biggest benefit to using this method is the relationship between the individuals involved (i.e. teacher and student) has a positive foundation.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">__Settings for Method Use__ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Positive reinforcement has no restrictions for appropriate settings.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">__Field’s Attitude Towards the Method__ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> Positive Reinforcement is generally accepted method of behavior management.

__<span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; text-align: center;">Summary of Research Study __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; margin-bottom: 0in;">Lalli, J. S., Vollmer, T. R., Progar, P. R., Wright, C., Borrero, J., Daniel, D., Barthold, C. H., et al. (1999). Competition between positive and negative reinforcement in the treatment of escape behavior. //Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis//, //32//(3), 285.

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Description of Subjects __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; margin-bottom: 0in;">Five individuals who had been admitted to a hospital inpatient unit for the treatment of severe problem behavior participated. Dante was 9 years old and had been diagnosed with severe mental retardation, autism, and pervasive developmental disorder. He had been admitted for treatment of selfinjurious behavior (hand biting). Jay was a 3-year-old boy with a diagnosis of mild developmental delays who had been admitted for treatment of disruptive behavior. Roy was 21 years old and had been diagnosed with severe mental retardation. Tommy was a 10-year-old boy with a diagnosis of severe mental retardation who had been admitted for treatment of flopping. Mia was 18 years old, had been diagnosed with severe mental retardation, and had been admitted for treatment of disruptive behavior. All participants required some level of assistance with their self-care activities.

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Description of Research Design __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; margin-bottom: 0in;">Participants’ problem behaviors were initially assessed via functional analysis (Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1982/1994). A series of analogue conditions was presented during 10-min sessions in a multielement design, with an additional sequential analysis (control, escape) for Mia. Four to five sessions were usually conducted daily, 5 days per week, with a minimum of 5 min between sessions. The second phase of the study began with an evaluation of reinforcing compliance with 287 either an edible item (positive reinforcement) or a 30-s break from a task (negative reinforcement) with or without extinction for problem behavior. The effect of either positive or negative reinforcement (with or without extinction) on compliance and problem behavior was assessed using a series of reversal designs for all participants, except for Roy, whose treatment was evaluated in a multielement design. One to three 10-min sessions were conducted daily, 5 days per week. An NCE condition and an extinction-only condition were also conducted for Mia.Participants’ access to edible items used during the functional analysis and treatment evaluation was uncontrolled other than during sessions throughout the study.

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Dependent Variable __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; margin-bottom: 0in;">Dante’s self-injury consisted of //hand biting// (closure of the upper and lower teeth on the flesh of the wrist) and //body hitting// (forceful contact of an open or closed fist to the thigh). //Disruptive behavior// was defined as hitting or kicking the floor or walls (Mia) or throwing or breaking items (Jay, Mia). //Flopping// was defined as a participant dropping his body to the floor (Roy, Tommy). //Compliance with an instruction// was defined as a participant independently initiating the task within 5 s of either the first (verbal) or the second (gestural) prompt of a three-step prompt hierarchy.

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Independent Variable __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; margin-bottom: 0in;">Edible Reinforcer, Break Time

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Summary of Results __ <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; margin-bottom: 0in;">Rates of problem behavior were lower and compliance was higher when compliance resulted in edible reinforcement than when compliance resulted in a break (SR-/SR- condition) for all participants.