ABSTRACT
The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effects of different magnitudes of escape for compliance relative to the magnitudes of escape for problem behavior in a concurrent-schedule arrangement. Three individuals who exhibited escape-maintained problem behavior participated. A large differential magnitude condition (240-s escape for compliance, 10-s escape for problem behavior) was compared to equal (30-s escape for compliance and problem behavior) and moderate differential magnitude (90-s escape for compliance, 10-s escape for problem behavior) conditions. The authors also evaluated the impact of correcting for reinforcer access time (i.e., time on escape intervals) on intervention interpretation. For all participants, problem behavior decreased during only the large differential magnitude condition, and including reinforcer access time in the overall session time did not affect interpretation of treatment outcomes. Providing larger escape magnitudes for compliance relative to problem behavior may facilitate treatment involving concurrent-reinforcement schedules for escape-maintained problem behavior.
Subject(s)
Problem Behavior/psychology , Reinforcement, Psychology , Adolescent , Autism Spectrum Disorder/psychology , Autism Spectrum Disorder/therapy , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Male , Reinforcement Schedule , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Automatically reinforced Subtype 2 self-injurious behavior (ASIB) has been characterized as showing insensitivity to competing reinforcement contingencies in the contexts of both functional analyses and in treatment using reinforcement alone (Hagopian, Rooker, &Yenokyan, 2018). One question is whether this insensitivity is specific to Subtype 2 ASIB as response class in these contexts or whether it is represents a generalized response tendency of the individual that is evident across other response classes. To examine this question, we compared responding on a single-operant task under changing reinforcement schedules for three individuals with Subtype 2 ASIB, relative to a comparison group of three individuals with socially reinforced SIB (which is characterized by sensitivity to changes in reinforcement contingencies). As hypothesized, all individuals showed sensitivity to changes in contingencies. These results provide preliminary support that the insensitivity of Subtype 2 ASIB is a property specific to that response class in these contexts rather than a generalized response tendency of the individual.
