Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis logoLink to Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
. 1977 Spring;10(1):1–12. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1977.10-1

Research on the difference between generalization and maintenance in extra-therapy responding.

R L Koegel, A Rincover
PMCID: PMC1311144  PMID: 845096

Abstract

Many authors have reported that the development of programs for producing durable extra-therapy responding lags behind the development of programs for producing initial behavior change. In Experiment I, responding was recorded continuously in both the therapy and extra-therapy settings. The results showed that one child did not generalize to the extra-therapy setting, but that other children did. However, for the children who generalized, extra-therapy responding was not maintained. Therfore, in Experiment II two variables affecting the durability of extra-therapy responding were assessed and found to be influential: (a) the use of partial reinforcement schedules in the original treatment environment; and (b) the presence of noncontingent reinforcers in the extra-therapy environment. The results suggest that there are two distinct parameters of extra-therapy responding: generalization and maintenance. A technology for producing durable extra-therapy responding is discussed in terms of different treatment procedures required for different deficits in extra-therapy responding.

Full text

PDF
1

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Atthowe J. M., Jr Behavior innovation and persistence. Am Psychol. 1973 Jan;28(1):34–41. doi: 10.1037/h0034168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ayllon T., Azrin N. H. Punishment as a discriminative stimulus and conditioned reinforcer with humans. J Exp Anal Behav. 1966 Jul;9(4):411–419. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1966.9-411. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. BARRETT B. H., LINDSLEY O. R. Deficits in acquisition of operant discrimination and differentiation shown by institutionalized retarded children. Am J Ment Defic. 1962 Nov;67:424–436. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Baer D. M., Wolf M. M., Risley T. R. Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. J Appl Behav Anal. 1968 Spring;1(1):91–97. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1968.1-91. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Barrish H. H., Saunders M., Wolf M. M. Good behavior game: effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom. J Appl Behav Anal. 1969 Summer;2(2):119–124. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1969.2-119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Birnbrauer J. S. Generalization of punishment effects-a case study. J Appl Behav Anal. 1968 Fall;1(3):201–211. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1968.1-201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. HOLZ W. C., AZRIN N. H. Discriminative properties of punishment. J Exp Anal Behav. 1961 Jul;4:225–232. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1961.4-225. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. HOLZ W. C., AZRIN N. H. Interactions between the discriminative and aversive properties of punishment. J Exp Anal Behav. 1962 Apr;5:229–234. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1962.5-229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Kazdin A. E., Bootzin R. R. The token economy: an evaluative review. J Appl Behav Anal. 1972 Fall;5(3):343–372. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1972.5-343. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kazdin A. E. Role of instructions and reinforcement in behavior changes in token reinforcement programs. J Educ Psychol. 1973 Feb;64(1):63–71. doi: 10.1037/h0034073. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Lovaas O. I., Koegel R., Simmons J. Q., Long J. S. Some generalization and follow-up measures on autistic children in behavior therapy. J Appl Behav Anal. 1973 Spring;6(1):131–165. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1973.6-131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. MORSE W. H., SKINNER B. F. A second type of superstition in the pigeon. Am J Psychol. 1957 Jun;70(2):308–311. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. MacPherson E. M., Candee B. L., Hohman R. J. A comparison of three methods for eliminating disruptive lunchroom behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 1974 Summer;7(2):287–297. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1974.7-287. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. PATTERSON G. R., ANDERSON D. PEERS AS SOCIAL REINFORCERS. Child Dev. 1964 Sep;35:951–960. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1964.tb05233.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Rincover A., Koegel R. L. Setting generality and stimulus control in autistic children. J Appl Behav Anal. 1975 Fall;8(3):235–246. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1975.8-235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Stokes T. F., Baer D. M., Jackson R. L. Programming the generalization of a greeting response in four retarded children. J Appl Behav Anal. 1974 Winter;7(4):599–610. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1974.7-599. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Wahler R. G. Setting generality: some specific and general effects of child behavior therapy. J Appl Behav Anal. 1969 Winter;2(4):239–246. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1969.2-239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Walker H. M., Buckley N. K. Programming generalization and maintenance of treatment effects across time and across settings. J Appl Behav Anal. 1972 Fall;5(3):209–224. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1972.5-209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

RESOURCES