Transcript Automatic Reinforcement & EH Assessment Repp Ch. 7 & 10

Automatic Reinforcement &
EBD Assessment
Repp Ch. 7 & 10
Ch. 7 – Automatic Reinforcement
1.
Most behavior:
a.
Maintained by socially mediated reinforcers (attn, escape,
tangibles)
b. Other behavior – respondent behavior, adjunctive
behavior, intermittent reinforcement, behavior from brain
damage
Adjunctive behavior: (SIB) schedule induced behavior


Polydipsia in rats-NCR food FT 1minute will drink 4X body weight
Schedule Induced Aggression: Pigeons under large
ratios(FR100) will attack other pigeons to point of death
c. Automatic reinforcement: the reinforcing effects within the
organism (not socially mediated). Self Stim Ex: flapping
finger in eye vs. eye contact (look at conc. schedules)
Theories

Social deprivation early in life (animals raised in
isolation will emit SIB and sterotypies)

Endorphin release as positive reinforcement or
reduce pain (endogenous opioids very similar to
exogenous opioids (morphine).



Activate release to produce pleasure sensation (positive
reinforcement)
Attenuate pain(negative reinforcement)
Naltrexone study (opioid antagonist)
Theories
 Neurodevelopmental dysfunction – changes in dopamine system may
produce SS
 Some drugs produce it – Innovar, alcohol
 Seizures – frontal lobe
 Arousal theory
 SS increases arousal in low stim environment
 SS decreases arousal in over stimulating env.
 SS modulates over and under
Theories
 Sensory/perceptual stimuli (auditory, tactile, gustatory, vestibular,
visual)
 Studies have shown extinction-like effects when sensory stimuli are
blocked
 Related to operant contingencies
 Superstitious conditioning
 “Frustrated” behavior after reinforcer removal - latter is EO
Theories
 Adjunctive behavior
 SS increased with FI interval in a Conc FI FI
 Respondent behavior as reaction to loud noise or pain, then comes
under the control of operant contingencies
Automatic Reinforcement
 Production of stimuli by the response itself without
intervention of people
 Private events (stimuli and responses). Potential
problems? Increase in motivation absent social
contingencies
 “Sight of dogs” example in which looking at dogs is
reinforced. Vaughn and Michael(1982) manipulated
deprivation by blocking access to dogs.(babies too)
Automatic Reinforcement
 Automatic reinforcement – is preferable to stereotypy as it focuses
attention on controlling variables (both positive and negative)
 Positive(sensory stimulation)
 Negative(pain attenuation)
3 Kinds of Behavior Assessment
1.
Indirect: “Tell me” method (interviews, checklist, rating
scales MAS, FAST, )
2.
Descriptive direct observation: “Show me” method in natural
environment
3.
FA: Systematic manipulations. Initially assumed that
behavior that occurred in the alone condition was maintained
by automatic reinforcement; however, the behavior could
function as a mand for attention. (Examples with QK and
parents coming running into room)
Extend the alone condition to make sure nothing else is occurring-other
variables
Sometimes a default if social reinforcers don’t seem to be involved
(interviews, etc)
Assessment
 How to ID SS: See box on page 125
 Insensitivity to social reinforcers (rule out att, escape, tangibles)
 Alternative explanations of undifferentiated data:




Thin schedules of social
Odd reinforcer (certain item)
Adjunctive behavior
Multiple control - Behavioral persistence in absence of social interaction
Assessment
 Rating scales not a good source – questions don’t address it
(“occurs repeatedly over and over in the same way”) Also low interrater reliability (QK ex)
 Direct observation is better
 Best is seeing if SS occurs in alone condition
 Manipulate public consequence (Rincover studies) This study
identified the maintaining reinforcer for palate spinning was
auditory; however, it could have been visual. Other ex: flipping light
switch could be visual or auditory.
 Hand mouthing could be maintained by Social
reinforcement(attention) in (Vollmer et al., 1993) or escape(Mace,et
al. 1987)
Assessment
 Sensory extinction procedures: anesthetizing the hand
 FT reversal phases using sensory stimuli (have light turn off and on
non-contingently)
 Problem – Stimuli may not be easily identified, and if so, may not be
manipulated
 Able to substitute reinforcers to decrease it (rocking chair to decrease
rocking)
Assessment
 Present other reinforcers that will maintain behavior and decrease SS
– does not have to be functionally equivalent or in same modalitySubstitutability- watching bright lights vs. hand mouthing(QK-JG
example).
 Effects of social contingencies must be ruled out before concluding
SS
Treatments – MO’s
 Deprivation(positive reinforcement) and aversive
stimuli (negative reinforcement); also, drugs
 Examples: NCR vibratory decreased head banging;
self stim items freely available decreased SIB(food
with PICA, large rubber balls for hand mouthing); Note
JG with edibles/PICA. SS occur in barren
environments(crib vs. outside crib). Ex: AMA school
obs. (rate of hand flapping when alone vs. working with
teacher)
Treatments – MO’s
 Self stim items available; enriched environments; satiation of specific
reinforcer (Rast studies with Rumination consumed large amounts of
food); exercise (53 exercise sessions over 16-week period with DD
male reduced body rocking. Reid(93)-reduction following running but
not walking(endorphin release).
Extinction
 Extinction: Attenuation or elimination of stimulation directly produced
by the response.
 Rincover studies (Sensory EXT: carpet on surface to reduce auditory
stimulation produced by spinning plates, disconnect light switch(can’t
turn lights on/off…QK(PB and BO), sticks(metal pins in sticks to would not
“snap”!). Drugs(block uptake endorphins. ACH)
Extinction
 Contingent protective gear (but could be punishment; or could allow new
contingent stimuli that could be punishment)
 Limitation: requires ID maintaining reinforcer, but hard to do as behavior
may produce multiple forms of stimulation (face slapping auditory and
tactile. EX: BG deaf/blind boy engaged in face slapping(visual and
auditory); also, may be impractical to eliminate stimuli (sticks!)…
Differential reinforcement
 DRA(attn contingent on toy play reduction in hand mouthing), DRO
(access to variety of other self-scratching, DRL (food for lower
response rates of SS-rocking)
 Limits: DRO/DRL don’t teach new behaviors; they also deprive P of
important stimuli à ext bursts, new behavior that produces even more
bizarre stimuli
Response Blocking
 Protective gear to prevent response or just block stimuli (EX: Brian
and the cans..fading..)
Punishment
 Time-Out
 Restraint
 Visual screening(cloth or material over head to limit visual stim.
access)
 Overcorrection
 Discrete stimuli (shock, lemon juice, water mist)
Ch. 10
Assessement-Based
Interventions for Children
with Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders
Characteristics of EBD
 Starts at 6, but services not provided until later
 Single parent homes (1/2), IQ in low average (86), deficiencies in
academics, poor social skills, segregated education
 School dropouts (50%)
 Problems later in life, crimes, employment problems
Assessment-based interventions
 Students were found to have inapp. behavior linked to certain events
 Peer failed to respond to greetings) –
 Ss were shown tapes and given feedback about better ways to handle
such situations
 Inapp. behavior with tasks
 Increase in tasks with <40% correct and less with tasks >60% correct.
Case
 ABC data, interview teachers, interview kid
 Develop hypotheses
 Better behavior with: no handwriting, problem solving
instead of drills, brief tasks, reminders to attend, and in
study carrel)
 Test hypotheses
 ABA designs with % of intervals with on-task behavior)
 Incorporate into Tx -used MB design across subjects
 Makes case for student assisted interviews (asks questions about
attention, escape, tangibles)
 Distal EO issue
 How to study
 Correlation in ABC data vs. causality in EAB
Lag Sequential Analysis
 Identify variable associated with target behavior
 Correlate behavior with coded A & C to calculate
conditional probability-this analysis quantifies the degree to
which the A &C is related to the behavior
 One study showed high probability of inapp.
behavior given teacher attention
 Fixed by having teacher do DRI and planned ignoring
 Cooper study – different combinations of hard vs. easy; low
vs. high teacher attention
 Choice making can decrease problem behaviors - explain
yoking procedure for tasks
Lag Sequential Analysis
 See Lerman, D.C.,& Iwata, B.A., (1993)
Descriptive and experimental analyses of variables maintaining selfinjurious behavior. (page 299)
Example:
A:
Intervals containing SIB that followed an antecedent event
Intervals scored with SIB
C: Intervals containing SIB that preceded a consequent event
Intervals scored with SIB
You can calculate instances in which task was presented and aggression occurred as
well as the non occurrence –the probability that given task difficulty (easy hard),
attention, etc.
Conditional Probabilities: See Vollmer(2001).
Identifying possible contingencies during descriptive analyses of sever behavior
disorder. JABA, 34, 269-287. This graph shows the examples of potentially
positive contingency values for instruction, low-attention and low-attention
EOs.
Implications
 Determine the likelihood the behavior will occur given
certain antecedent and consequent events.
 Must consider reinforcement parameters for appropriate
vs. problematic behavior in order to shift response
allocation (rate of reinforcement, delay, duration,
magnitude, quality, aversive stimulation/response cost)
 Thus making sure that you increase reinforcement for
appropriate behavior and decrease rate of
reinforcement for inappropriate behaviors.
 Review Matching Law!!!
 Conduct reinforcer analysis-