Abstract
We compared the effects of direct and indirect reinforcement contingencies on the performance of 6 individuals with profound developmental disabilities. Under both contingencies, completion of identical tasks (opening one of several types of containers) produced access to identical reinforcers. Under the direct contingency, the reinforcer was placed inside the container to be opened; under the indirect contingency, the therapist held the reinforcer and delivered it to the participant upon task completion. One participant immediately performed the task at 100% accuracy under both contingencies. Three participants showed either more immediate or larger improvements in performance under the direct contingency. The remaining 2 participants showed improved performance only under the direct reinforcement contingency. Data taken on the occurrence of "irrelevant" behaviors under the indirect contingency (e.g., reaching for the reinforcer instead of performing the task) provided some evidence that these behaviors may have interfered with task performance and that their occurrence was a function of differential stimulus control.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (131.7 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Balsam P. D., Bondy A. S. The negative side effects of reward. J Appl Behav Anal. 1983 Fall;16(3):283–296. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1983.16-283. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- DeLeon I. G., Iwata B. A., Conners J., Wallace M. D. Examination of ambiguous stimulus preferences with duration-based measures. J Appl Behav Anal. 1999 Spring;32(1):111–114. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1999.32-111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- DeLeon I. G., Iwata B. A. Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. J Appl Behav Anal. 1996 Winter;29(4):519–533. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-519. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Egel A. L. Reinforcer variation: implications for motivating developmentally disabled children. J Appl Behav Anal. 1981 Fall;14(3):345–350. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1981.14-345. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Koegel R. L., Williams J. A. Direct versus indirect response-reinforcer relationships in teaching autistic children. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 1980 Dec;8(4):537–547. doi: 10.1007/BF00916505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lohrmann-O'Rourke S., Browder D. M. Empirically based methods to assess the preferences of individuals with severe disabilities. Am J Ment Retard. 1998 Sep;103(2):146–161. doi: 10.1352/0895-8017(1998)103<0146:EBMTAT>2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Neef N. A., Shade D., Miller M. S. Assessing influential dimensions of reinforcers on choice in students with serious emotional disturbance. J Appl Behav Anal. 1994 Winter;27(4):575–583. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-575. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Vollmer T. R., Iwata B. A. Establishing operations and reinforcement effects. J Appl Behav Anal. 1991 Summer;24(2):279–291. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1991.24-279. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Williams J. A., Koegel R. L., Egel A. L. Response-reinforcer relationships and improved learning in autistic children. J Appl Behav Anal. 1981 Spring;14(1):53–60. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1981.14-53. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]