Abstract
Two severely retarded boys, each a member of a different play group, experienced three regimes of reinforcement from adults [contingent, noncontingent, and mixed (contingent and noncontingent)]. The agent of contingent reinforcement acquired stimulus control of the subjects' behavior; the noncontingent agent did not. The agent of the mixed schedule of reinforcement did not gain control, but aspects of his behavior came to function as cues. The mixed adult's withholding reinforcement in the absence of the target behavior (cooperative play) evoked cooperative play, whereas his presenting free reinforcement resulted in the subjects' remaining in their inactive, baseline positions.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Hall R. V., Broden M. Behavior changes in brain-injured children through social reinforcement. J Exp Child Psychol. 1967 Dec;5(4):463–479. doi: 10.1016/0022-0965(67)90042-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hart B. M., Reynolds N. J., Baer D. M., Brawley E. R., Harris F. R. Effect of contingent and non-contingent social reinforcement on the cooperative play of a preschool child. J Appl Behav Anal. 1968 Spring;1(1):73–76. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1968.1-73. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Madsen C. H., Becker W. C., Thomas D. R. Rules, praise, and ignoring: elements of elementary classroom control. J Appl Behav Anal. 1968 Summer;1(2):139–150. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1968.1-139. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Redd W. H., Birnbrauer J. S. Adults as discriminative stimuli for different reinforcement contingencies with retarded children. J Exp Child Psychol. 1969 Jun;7(3):440–447. doi: 10.1016/0022-0965(69)90006-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]