A Comparison of Two Procedures for Programming the Differential Reinforcement of Other Behaviors

Abstract

The relative effectiveness of two methods of programming DRO schedules of reinforcement was examined in two experiments. In these two methods, reinforcement is delivered if inappropriate responding is not occurring (a) at the end of an interval (momentary DRO), or (b) throughout the entire interval (whole-interval DRO). In Experiment 1, the effects of these schedules on disruptive responding of three retarded students were assessed in a multiple-baseline design. For two students, the momentary schedule occurred first and was ineffective, whereas the whole interval that followed was effective; for the third student, the whole-interval schedule occurred first and was effective, and reduced responding was maintained under the momentary schedule. In Experiment 2, baseline and the two DRO schedules were each presented in random order each day to one student in an alternating treatments design. The momentary DRO schedule reduced responding, but the whole-interval schedule was more effective.

The Application of Herrnstein's Law of Effect to Disruptive and On‐task Behavior of a Retarded Adolescent Girl

“…Existing efforts to apply matching theory to human behavior can be classified into three general categories: those that evaluate the theory on mathematical or conceptual grounds (Killeen, 1972;Martens & Witt, 1988;McDowell, 1980McDowell, , 1982McDowell, , 1986Myerson & Hale, 1984); those that demonstrate matching on analogue laboratory tasks (Baum, 1975;Bradshaw, Szabadi, & Bevan, 1976, 1978Schroeder & Holland, 1969); and those that demonstrate processes such as behavioral contrast and responding under differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior (DRO) schedules, which approximate matching in applied settings (Deitz, Repp, & Deitz, 1976;Gross & Drabman, 1981;Parrish, Cataldo, Kolko, Neef, & Egel, 1986;Poling & Ryan, 1982;Repp, Barton, & Brulle, 1983;Simon, Ayllon, & Milan, 1982).…”

Response Interruption and DRL for the Reduction of Rapid Eating

“…The results were somewhat unexpected for the DRL procedure, however, because every bite attempt delayed the allowable bite by 15 s. It is undear why this procedure was only marginally effective given the immediate contingency for rapid eating attempts. Perhaps the target interval of 15 s might have been obtained had the recommended strategy of gradually lengthening the interval been followed (Repp et al, 1983).…”

“…To permit a valid comparison between this procedure and the F1 procedure, the DRL interval was set at 15 s even though a gradual increase in the interval of a differential schedule is recommended (Repp, Barton, & Brulle, 1983). DRL plus prompting (DRL/P).…”

Maintenance of Therapeutic Change by Momentary Dro

“…In a recent study, Repp, Barton, and Brulle (1983) found differences between two common methods of scheduling the DRO interval. In one, reinforcement is delivered if the target behavior has not occurred throughout an entire interval (e.g., 1 min), a procedure we have referred to as whole-interval DRO (WIDRO).…”