Effects and Side Effects of Dro as Treatment for Self‐injurious Behavior

Cowdery, Glynnis Edwards; Iwata, Brian A.; Pace, Gary M.

doi:10.1901/jaba.1990.23-497

Cited by 109 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…EXPERIMENT 2 Cowdery et al (1990) suggested that although continuous (noncontingent) access to stimulating activities may be effective in reducing stereotypic SIB, the intervention may not always be practical: These activities are not always available, they may require one-to-one supervision to ensure continued object manipulation, and they can lose their reinforcing effects due to satiation. In addition, continuous access to leisure materials might interfere with the performance of other adaptive skills.…”

Section: Leisure Materials Availablementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cowdery et al (1990), for example, showed that access to a variety of games contingent on the nonoccurrence of scratching was an effective intervention, and Repp et al (1976) decreased the hair twirling, hand biting, and thumb sucking behavior of 3 children by delivering praise and edible reinforcers in a DRO contingency. Other studies have also shown DRO to be an effective intervention for treating stereotypic behavior (Luiselli & Krause, 1981;Repp, Deitz, & Speir, 1974).…”

Section: Leisure Materials Availablementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An Analysis of Reinforcer Substitutability Using Object Manipulation and Self‐injury as Competing Responses

Shore

Iwata

DeLeon

et al. 1997

J of App Behav Analysis

Self Cite

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of reinforcer substitutability proposes a continuum of interactions among reinforcers in a given situation. At one end of this continuum, reinforcers are substitutable, with one reinforcer being readily traded for another. We conducted an analysis of reinforcers that were substitutable with those produced by self-injurious behavior (SIB). Three individuals with profound developmental disabilities, whose SIB appeared to be maintained by automatic reinforcement, participated. Results of three experiments showed that (a) object manipulation and SIB were inversely related when leisure materials and SIB were concurrently available, with participants showing almost complete preference for object manipulation; (b) attempts to reduce SIB using the preferred objects as reinforcers in differential reinforcement contingencies were unsuccessful for all 3 participants; and (c) participants' preferences for SIB or object manipulation systematically changed when reinforcer cost (the amount of effort required to obtain the object) was varied. Results of the three experiments illustrate the importance of examining interactions among concurrently available reinforcers when conducting reinforcer assessments.DESCRIPTORS: stereotypy, self-injurious behavior, reinforcer substitutability, differential reinforcement of other behavior Although considerable research has shown that many behavior problems are maintained by social reinforcement, such as attention from caregivers

show abstract

Section: Leisure Materials Availablementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Leisure Materials Availablementioning

confidence: 99%

An Analysis of Reinforcer Substitutability Using Object Manipulation and Self‐injury as Competing Responses

Shore

Iwata

DeLeon

et al. 1997

J of App Behav Analysis

Self Cite

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…extinction has been associated with problems such as response bursting or emotional responding (see Lerman & Iwata, 1996, for a review), and similar negative side effects have been reported when DRO has been used to reduce problem behavior (Cowdery, Iwata, & Pace, 1990). By contrast, NCR has been reported to minimize the presence of side effects (Vollmer, Iwata, Zarcone, Smith, & Mazaleski, 1993;Vollmer et al, 1998).…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

The Effects of Extinction, Noncontingent Reinforcement, and Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior as Control Procedures

Thompson

Iwata

Hanley

et al. 2003

J of App Behav Analysis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several techniques have been used in applied research as controls for the introduction of a reinforcement contingency, including extinction, noncontingent reinforcement (NCR), and differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO). Little research, however, has examined the relative strengths and limitations of these “reversal” controls. We compared the effects of extinction with those of NCR and DRO in both multielement and reversal designs, with respect to (a) rate and amount of response decrement, (b) rate of response recovery following reintroduction of reinforcement, and (c) any positive or negative side effects associated with transitions. Results indicated that extinction generally produced the most consistent and rapid reversal effects, with few observed negative side effects.

show abstract

“…Even though this is a relatively simple behavioral method, its effects are possibly quite profound. This approach is similar to the procedure of differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) in which reinforcement is provided contingent on behaviors distinct from and absent of those targeted for reduction (for an applied example, see Cowdery, Iwata, & Pace, 1990). The result is potentially the increased frequency of the offender's desirable behavior with a simultaneous reduction in the frequency of aversive behaviors.…”

Section: Differential Reinforcementmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Behavioral Analysis of Apologies, Forgiveness, and Interpersonal Conflict

Toney

Hayes

2017

Behav. Soc. Iss.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Episodes of conflict can be among the most distressful experiences while interacting with others or within a relationship. There are a number of behaviors that occur to compose a conflict, however there are two behaviors that serve to restore a relationship following a conflict, those of apologizing and forgiving. While substantial attention has been provided to the issues of interpersonal conflict, apologizing, and forgiving from more traditional approaches, these accounts contrast with the views of behavior analysis in a number of ways. When the behaviors involved in interpersonal conflict are assessed from a behavioranalytic perspective, many of these traditional views are directly challenged. Furthermore, we find that the manner in which conflicts are normally resolved within relationships may be contributing to harmful patterns of interacting. The present paper aims to provide a thorough behavioral analysis of the operating contingencies and behaviors that occur during episodes of interpersonal conflict. With such an understanding, suggestions are made based on behavioral principles and procedures as to how resolution may be more readily achieved and further conflict may be avoided. KEYWORDS: conflict, apology, forgiveness, relationships, behavior analysis Relationships of every kind can be complicated and at times difficult for the individuals involved. While the majority of interactions within a relationship ideally are positive, it is almost unavoidable to experience a conflict of some sort. Individuals disagree, argue, insult, or cause pain to the other, all of which are likely distressing to those involved. These interactions can result in an array of unpleasant circumstances, such as avoidance, retaliation, or even the termination of a relationship. However, the behaviors of apologizing and forgiving serve to restore the relationship following a conflict; therefore, an examination seems warranted.The behaviors of apologizing and forgiving have become common features of our repertoires. The types of situations in which we engage in one or the other can vary greatly, such as when we abruptly walk in front of an individual at a grocery store to more substantial offenses as when a leader apologizes to a nation for wrongful action in war. These behaviors also occur across various types of relationships; a parent demands her child apologize to a sibling, and a partner proclaims to a spouse, "I deserve an apology." Being such common behaviors, apologizing and forgiving have received a great deal of attention from traditional fields. However, these accounts pose an array of differences when compared to those of behavior analysis. These differences, in general, pertain to the treatments of emotion, the emphasis on the form rather than the function of the responses involved, and the treatment of one independent individual's behavior.

show abstract

Effects and Side Effects of Dro as Treatment for Self‐injurious Behavior

Cited by 109 publications

References 13 publications

An Analysis of Reinforcer Substitutability Using Object Manipulation and Self‐injury as Competing Responses

An Analysis of Reinforcer Substitutability Using Object Manipulation and Self‐injury as Competing Responses

The Effects of Extinction, Noncontingent Reinforcement, and Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior as Control Procedures

A Behavioral Analysis of Apologies, Forgiveness, and Interpersonal Conflict

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About