PS560 Discussion

PS560 Discussion

Applying Differential Reinforcement Procedures

Complete the readings and the interactive learning activity before you attempt the discussion question.

Define each of the differential reinforcement procedures, noting how the two components of each procedure affect the occurrence of problem and desired behaviors. Then, choose a personal behavior, or the behavior of someone in your environment (maintaining confidentiality, of course!). Choose a Differential Reinforcement procedure and explain how you would apply that procedure to decrease the problem behavior and increase a desired behavior, taking into consideration the thoughts on schedules of reinforcement and matching law covered last week.

Review two of your classmate's responses using following ideas as a guide:

• Are the components of DR procedures clearly noted?
• Provide constructive feedback on the application of the chosen DR procedure.
• What suggestions for an alternate DR procedure might you recommend?
• Provide suggestions related to the peer’s explanation of how the schedules of reinforcement and matching law are applied.
• Ask at least one thoughtful follow up question. Reply to Kaylah Healy : Differential reinforcement procedures are evidence-based interventions that are designed to decrease maladaptive behaviors while increasing appropriate behaviors, using a systematic approach of reinforcement and extinction. Each procedure includes two essential components. According to Cooper et al. (2020), you need reinforcement for the specified response class and withholding of reinforcement for another response class. Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) includes reinforcing functionally equivalent alternative responses while placing the other problem behavior on extinction, differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior (DRI) reinforces a behavior that cannot occur simultaneously with the problem behavior, differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) delivers reinforcement that is contingent on the absence of the problem behavior during a specified interval; if the behavior happens, reinforcement is the withheld and the interval is restarted, differential reinforcement of low rates (DRL) is used when the goal is to reduce but not completely eliminate a behavior by reinforcing responding that fall below a predetermined rate (Cooper et al., 2020). Across procedures, effectiveness depends on ensuring that the rate reinforced response contacts reinforcement at a rate and magnitude that is sufficient to compete with that reinforcement that is maintaining the behavior (Fisher et al., 2021). Research supports the use of differential reinforcement across populations and settings. Cooper et al. (2020) notes the importance of selecting the appropriate differential reinforcement procedure requires a functional understanding of the maintaining variables. Fisher et al. (2021) also explains that treatment integrity and reinforcement schedules are crucial for producing durable behavior change. Further research by Johnson et al. (2017) provides more proof that differential reinforcement procedures are effective for learners with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), specifically when reinforcement parameters are individualized and implemented consistently. These findings express the importance of reinforcement density, immediacy, and quality when designing differential reinforcement interventions. To provide you with a clinical example of a DRO, I will explain a hypothetical scenario. Garrison is an eight-year-old boy with ASD. Garrison engages in high magnitude scripting during instructional and social activities. While scripting is an automatic function, it interferes with attending and task completion. Baseline data would be collected to determine the average rate of scripting, such as two minutes. A whole-interval DRO schedule could then be introduced with an initial interval set just below the baseline levels, such as one minute, to encourage success. If Garrison does not script for the entire interval, reinforcement would be delivered in the form of behavior-specific praise and access to a preferred activity. If scripting occurs, reinforcement would then be withheld and the interval would reset. As noted by Cooper et al. (2020), extinction-based components are most effective when the maintaining reinforcer can be withheld, which is more complex with automatically maintained behavior. If data shows that a DRO is not producing consistent results, transitioning to a DRL may be a better choice. In ABA, even well-planned interventions may not provide the expected results, and data may indicate that adjustments are necessary. When this occurs, behavior analysts rely on ongoing measurement and data-based decision making to modify the intervention and select a more effective approach. A DRL would be placed to reduce the rate of scripting rather than eliminate it, allowing scripting to occur during appropriate times and at a lower rate. This would consider the automatic function of the behavior while shaping contextual appropriateness. Fisher et al. (2021) notes that interventions for automatically maintained behavior sometimes require competing sources of reinforcement, not just trying to extinguish the behavior completely. By reinforcing engagement in instructions or socially appropriate timing at a higher rate than the automatic reinforcement itself, his response may begin to move towards participation. When considering schedules of reinforcement and the matching law, scripting continues as it provides immediate and consistent reinforcement, where instructions may produce a delayed or less preferred reinforcement (Cooper et al., 2020). For either a DRO or DRL, reinforcement would need to be densely delivered and immediate to compete effectively. Once we see lower, or no instances of scripting, reinforcement could systematically thin to encourage maintenance (Cooper et al., 2020). By beginning with a DRO to assess the response and possibly moving to a DRL, it shows data-based decision making, functional reasoning, and social validity. Rather than focusing only on eliminating scripting, the goal becomes more realistic if the DRO simply is not working long-term. When looking at a board-certified behavior analysts’ view, selecting a differential reinforcement schedule involves more than selecting something from a textbook, it involves determining the function, reinforcement effectiveness, and long-term goals. In this scenario, even though a DRO may be a good starting point to establish baseline data, a DRL may actually provide a more sustainable and socially valid solution for the scripting behavior that is automatically reinforced. References:Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson.Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C. C., & Roane, H. S. (2021). Handbook of applied behavior analysis. Guilford Press.Johnson, K. A., Vladescu, J. C., Kodak, T., & Sidener, T. M. (2017). An assessment of differential reinforcement procedures for learners with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50(2), 290–303. Reply to Allison Wilson: Differential reinforcement entails reinforcing one response class and withholding reinforcement for another response class" (Cooper et al., 2019, p. 596). There are 5 main types of differential reinforcement. These are known as differential reinforcement of alternative behavior, other behavior, incompatible behavior, of high and low rates. All these focus on increasing desirable behaviors while decreasing the reinforcement of the problem/undesirable behaviors. Differential Reinforcement of Alternative behavior (DRA) focuses on increasing the likelihood of desirable behaviors while decreasing the likelihood of undesirable behaviors (Miltenberger, 2023). When using DRA any time the individual engages in a behavior similar the problem behavior, however the alternative behavior is more appropriate, the individual will be reinforced. An example of DRA would be reinforcing a child for using functional communication to request to "go" rather than the child eloping. While using this approach, the problem behavior is weakened by withholding reinforcement and the desired behavior is reinforced increasing the likelihood it will occur again. Differential Reinforcement of Other behavior (DRO) focuses on reinforcing the individual after specific intervals of which the problem behavior does not occur. (Miltenberger, 2023). DRO will reinforce the individual for engaging in any other behavior other than then the problem behavior. An example of this referring to the same behavior of elopement as discussed above would be after 5 minutes of a child not eloping, they are reinforced. In DRO it weakens the problem behavior by providing reinforcement only when the problem behavior does not occur. It strengthens the desired behavior by allowing for reinforcement of any other behaviors to occur. Differential Reinforcement of Incompatible behavior (DRI) is a procedure that reinforces a behavior that cannot exist simultaneously with the problem behavior (Cooper et al., 2019). When referring to the child that elopes, the child would be reinforced for sitting since sitting is incompatible with running away. This procedure weakens the undesirable behavior by reinforcing behaviors that cannot exist at the same time. Differential Reinforcement of High Rates of behavior (DRH) reinforces behaviors when it occurs at very high rates. DRH withholds reinforcement unless the target behavior occurs at very high rates. This is typically used when trying to increase more desirable behaviors. Differential Reinforcement of Low Rates of behavior (DRL) is a procedure "in which a reinforcer is delivered contingent on a lower rate of responding during a period of time" (Miltenberger, 2023, p. 233) This procedure is best when trying to reduce a behavior rather than eliminate it in total. DRL would be explained within the child who elopes by say the child typically elopes 10 times per hour, but within an hour they only eloped 4 times. The child would still be reinforced although they eloped however it occurred within the hour at a lower rate. A behavior in my own personal environment I would use a differential reinforcement procedure on is my niece's tantrums. Her tantrums are particularly fostered around denied access to items. The procedure I would use would be differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA). This would be used by reinforcing an alternative behavior rather than engaging in tantrums. For example, if she wants a cookie but is told "not right now" and instead of engaging in tantrums she functionally communicates by saying "cookie please" she will be reinforced for doing so. After consideration of last week's discussion regarding schedules of reinforcement and matching law, it would be best to provide immediate and continuous reinforcement when first implementing the procedure. Regarding matching law, receiving reinforcement for functional communicating will influence my niece to engage in that behavior more often if she does not receive reinforcement when engaging in tantrums. ReferencesCooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2019). Applied Behavior Analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson Education (US). https://purdueuniversityglobal.vitalsource.com/books/9780134798769Miltenberger, R. G. (2023). Behavior Modification: Principles and Procedures (7th ed.). Cengage Learning US. https://purdueuniversityglobal.vitalsource.com/books/9798214338309