Responders must answer all questions correctly asked by peers to receive credit for this part of the assignment.
PLEASE ONLY USE ONLY THIS ARTICLE:
EXAMINING THE GENERALITY OF CHILDREN’S PREFERENCE FOR CONTINGENT REINFORCEMENT
Kevin C Luczynski and Gregory P Hanley
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2938931/
Grading Rubric:
- All peer questions are fully answered with individual posts for each student
- Responses to all peer comments
- Responses furthers the discussion and demonstrates an awareness of the meaning of the discussion
- Response is written in full-sentences with correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation
- Responses are at least 200 words inlength (excluding references/citations)
- Questions are answered fully (if you don’t know the answer you should research to find one)
First Post:
Hi Tajah,
Thank you for your discussion! Using social interactions and practical schedules as reinforcers is interesting and important to study as this is something that can be used to help children learn in ways that are motivating for them. I find that many of the clients I’ve worked with are motivated by social interactions, so I appreciate you discussing this. In the assigned article, children preferred contingent reinforcement as opposed to non-contingent reinforcement under a continuous reinforcement schedule. Even when the schedule became an intermittent schedule, the children continued to display a preference for contingent reinforcement. As the reinforcement was scheduled to be delivered at thinner rates, then the children began to show preference for non-contingent reinforcement instead (Luczynski& Hanley, 2010). Even though edible items were used as reinforcers here, I am curious what the results would have been if done with children who have a preference for social interactions, while using that as a reinforcer.
Another experiment was conducted in 2006 to determine children’s schedule preferences while using that to create social behavior that is frequently observed in preschool classrooms during instructional events. This kind of research is important because it gathers information on teaching young children how to gain social interaction during appropriate times in class, while reducing interruptions throughout teaching situations. This experiment was conducted using a multiple schedule of reinforcement and extinction together, then reinforcement by itself, and finally, a mixed schedule where neither reinforcement or extinction was present. Reinforcement was delivered as attention. Findings demonstrated that children preferred multiple schedules of reinforcement and extinction together, and reinforcement by itself when learning how to gain social interaction from their teacher during appropriate times (Tiger et al., 2006).
The findings from each of these articles can be valuable to the structure of children’s learning environments. Taking their personal preferences into consideration can enhance their learning experiences by making it more enjoyable and motivating for them.
References
Luczynski, K. C., & Hanley, G. P. (2010). Examining the generality of children’s preference for contingent reinforcement via extension to different responses, reinforcers, and schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(3), 397-409. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2010.43-397
Tiger, J. H., Hanley, G. P., & Heal, N.A. (2006). The effectiveness of and preschoolers’ preference for variations of multiple-schedule arrangements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39(4), 475-488. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2006.48-06
Second Post:
In my own experience practicing ABA, children I’ve worked with have preferred contingent reinforcement over non-contingent reinforcement almost all of the time. The client receives something they desire or need after they deliver a desired response, whereas with non-contingent reinforcement its more of a preventative action where you deliver a specific response in order to prevent an undesired response to present itself. With CR they know reinforcement will be delivered after responding accordingly, so most clients will do what they can to receive that desired item, with NCR they know they receive a gesture after a certain amount of time. Would pairing NCR with another strategy, used to strengthen behaviors, encourage learners/clients to help NCR become a more desired strategy? Goh, H.L., et al. (2013) conducted a study pairing NCR with differential reinforcement of alternative-behavior (DRA) in hopes it would both increase appropriate behaviors and decrease inappropriate behaviors simultaneously. Results concluded that pairing the strategies caused some interference between the acquisition of desired behaviors and the elimination of undesired behaviors. NCR and DRA were not a perfect match, but Goh, H.L., et al. (2013) states that the thinning of a NCR schedule might have to happen before the introduction of DRA in hopes to improve effectiveness. Why would thinning the NCR schedule cause the procedure to be more successful rather than having the strategies coincide?
Goh, H.L., Iwata, B.A. and DeLeon, I.G. (2000), Competition between noncontingent and contingent reinforcement schedules during response acquisition. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33: 195-205. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2000.33-195
253 words
