Group Operant Behavior: An Extension of Individual Research Methodology to a Real-Life Situation

Antonitis, Joseph J.; Barnes, Gerald W.

doi:10.1080/00221325.1961.10534357

Cited by 19 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In several studies, illumination or color pattern changes contingent on various simple responses resulted in large increases in response rates in infants and preschool children (e.g., Antonitis & Barnes, 1961;Caron, 1967;Rheingold, Stanley, & Doyle, 1964;Rovee & Rovee, 1969;Stevenson & Odom, 1961). The reinforcing properties of some visual stimuli decreased over time, but small changes reinstated high rates of responding (Antonitis & Barnes, 1961). Many additional studies have demonstrated a perceptual reinforcement effect in older children and adults and have extended the range of perceptual consequences found to be reinforcing and the responses susceptible to reinforcement.…”

Section: Sensory and Perceptualmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In several studies, illumination or color pattern changes contingent on various simple responses resulted in large increases in response rates in infants and preschool children (e.g., Antonitis & Barnes, 1961;Caron, 1967;Rheingold, Stanley, & Doyle, 1964;Rovee & Rovee, 1969;Stevenson & Odom, 1961). The reinforcing properties of some visual stimuli decreased over time, but small changes reinstated high rates of responding (Antonitis & Barnes, 1961 Cotter, 1972;Mira, 1968;Siqueland, 1968). The relationship of this research to self-stimulatory behavior is especially dose in the case of those studies (e.g., Mira, 1968;Rovee & Rovee, 1969) that used conjugate reinforcement procedures (Lindsley, Hobika, & Etsten, 1961).…”

Section: Sensory and Perceptualmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Self‐stimulatory Behavior and Perceptual Reinforcement

Lovaas¹,

Newsom²,

Hickman³

1987

J of App Behav Analysis

313

198

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-stimulatory behavior is repetitive, stereotyped, functionally autonomous behavior seen in both normal and developmentally disabled populations, yet no satisfactory theory of its development and major characteristics has previously been offered. We present here a detailed hypothesis of the acquisition and maintenance of self-stimulatory behavior, proposing that the behaviors are operant responses whose reinforcers are automatically produced interoceptive and exteroceptive perceptual consequences. The concept of perceptual stimuli and reinforcers, the durability of self-stimulatory behaviors, the sensory extinction effect, the inverse relationship between self-stimulatory and other behaviors, the blocking effect of self-stimulatory behavior on new learning, and response substitution effects are discussed in terms of the hypothesis. Support for the hypothesis from the areas of sensory reinforcement and sensory deprivation is also reviewed. Psychologists and ethologists, who have been studying these behaviors for some time, have referred to them as "abnormal stereotyped acts," "mannerisms," "motility disturbances," "ritualistic acts," "rhythmic habit patterns," "blindisms," or "autisms" (e.g., Baumeister & Forehand, 1973;Berkson, 1967;Mitchell & Etches, 1977 (Lovaas, Varni, Koegel, & Lorsch, 1977) despite our discouragement of it. Other unexpected and elaborate repertoires also developed during treatment, such as obsession with numbers, compulsive arrangement of letters, and frequent assembly and reassembly of the same jigsaw puzzle (Epstein, Taubman, & Lovaas, 1985). The children who made the largest gains in treatment were also the ones who emerged with the largest repertoire of such "personally contributed" behaviors.To date, no comprehensive theory of self-stimulatory behavior in the developmentally disabled has been proposed. Most theorizing in this area has consisted of unelaborated accounts of specific experimental results, often focusing on body-rock-46 SELF-STIMULATORY BEHAVIOR ing as the "prototypical" self-stimulatory behavior. As a result, Baumeister (1978) found it necessary to create a five-way classification scheme simply to impose some order on the many different accounts, noting that none explained very many findings. The purpose of this paper is to present in some detail the hypothesis that self-stimulatory behavior is operant behavior that is maintained automatically by the reinforcing perceptual stimuli that it produces. This hypothesis will be used to explain the acquisition of representative behaviors and the etiology of self-stimulatory behavior in developmentally disabled persons, as well as certain prominent characteristics of self-stimulatory behavior. Empirical support for this hypothesis is offered from relevant areas of research. The Discussion considers two representative alternative theories and describes implications of our hypothesis for the treatment of developmentally disabled persons and the understanding of apparently related behaviors in other populations. PERCEPTUAL REINFO...

show abstract

Section: Sensory and Perceptualmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In several studies, illumination or color pattern changes contingent on various simple responses resulted in large increases in response rates in infants and preschool children (e.g., Antonitis & Barnes, 1961;Caron, 1967;Rheingold, Stanley, & Doyle, 1964;Rovee & Rovee, 1969;Stevenson & Odom, 1961). The reinforcing properties of some visual stimuli decreased over time, but small changes reinstated high rates of responding (Antonitis & Barnes, 1961 Cotter, 1972;Mira, 1968;Siqueland, 1968). The relationship of this research to self-stimulatory behavior is especially dose in the case of those studies (e.g., Mira, 1968;Rovee & Rovee, 1969) that used conjugate reinforcement procedures (Lindsley, Hobika, & Etsten, 1961).…”

Section: Sensory and Perceptualmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self‐stimulatory Behavior and Perceptual Reinforcement

Lovaas¹,

Newsom²,

Hickman³

1987

J of App Behav Analysis

313

198

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When interaction was involved, it was the nature of the within-group interactions that was typically of primary interest (e.g., Baron and Littman, 1961;Mowrer, 1960;Oldfield-Box, 1967). A few experiments have examined groups as units, using the collective performance of the group as the dependent variable (e.g., Abel, 1937;Ader and Tatum, 1963; Allee and Masure, 1936;Antonitis and Barnes, 1961;Gates and Allee, 1933;Harless, 1972;Klopfer, 1958;Miller and Murphy, 1955). But there are no major studies in which the operant behavior of a group of co-acting 'This paper was presented to Reed College by the first author as a thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

GROUP BEHAVIOR OF RATS UNDER SCHEDULES OF REINFORCEMENT¹

Grott

Neuringer

1974

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Groups of three rats were placed in a chamber containing one response lever and one water dispenser. A variety of schedule conditions were explored including fixed ratio, extinction, satiation, fixed interval, fixed time, differential reinforcement of low rates, and discrimination learning. Each group was treated as a single unit, with the collective lever responses emitted by the three rats being the main dependent variable. Group responding was found to be controlled by the reinforcement schedules in an orderly and consistent manner. However, the groups often paused less and responded faster than individual rats working under identical conditions.Whereas the experimental analysis of behavior has emphasized isolated organisms, in nonlaboratory environments animals often interact. The present study attempted to extend operant conditioning methods and analysis to the behavior of groups. Most experiments on group performance have been concerned with the behavior of one individual as a function of variables related to the presence of others (e.g., Husband, 1931;Wheeler and Davis, 1967). When interaction was involved, it was the nature of the within-group interactions that was typically of primary interest (e.g., Baron and Littman, 1961;Mowrer, 1960;Oldfield-Box, 1967 organisms has been studied as a function of basic schedules of reinforcement.In the present study, three rats were placed together in an operant chamber containing one lever and one water dispenser. The collective operant behavior of the group, defined by lever responses, was the main dependent variable. The groups were also monitored visually. To compare group performances with the more extensively studied individual operant performances, individual rats were presented with schedules identical to those given the groups.

show abstract

“…And with continued presentation the stimulus lost its reinforcing potential. T h e course of change in reactivity of the children to the auditory stimuli used in the present study parallels the course of change in reactivity that was observed in the first group operant-behavior studies (1) in which a lighted stimulus screen and pictorial stimuli were employed as reinforcers. Further, the results of the first studies (1) and of the present observations appear to parallel the commonly observed course of change in reactivity of human beings and animals in general to novel, nonorganically reinforcing stimulus situations in general.…”

Section: General Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 55%