Progressing From Programmatic to Discovery Research: A Case Example With the Overjustification Effect

Abstract

Scientific research progresses along planned (programmatic research) and unplanned (discovery research) paths. In the current investigation, we attempted to conduct a single-case evaluation of the overjustification effect (i.e., programmatic research). Results of the initial analysis were contrary to the overjustification hypothesis in that removal of the reward contingency produced an increase in responding. Based on this unexpected finding, we conducted subsequent analyses to further evaluate the mechanisms underlying these results (i.e., discovery research). Results of the additional analyses suggested that the reward contingency functioned as punishment (because the participant preferred the task to the rewards) and that withdrawal of the contingency produced punishment contrast.

Disruptive Effects of Contingent Food on High‐probability Behavior

“…Specifically, we set out to evaluate whether the removal of the contingent provision of food would differentially affect stimulus engagement with toys of varying preference. However, similar to results obtained by Roane, Fisher, and McDonough (2003), contingent delivery of a known reinforcer decreased engagement with one stimulus. These findings generated alternative hypotheses regarding ways in which reinforcer delivery could disrupt ongoing responding.…”

An evaluation of the overjustification effect across multiple contingency arrangements

“…These results suggest that the use of reinforcers may not have a detrimental effect on task performance, but suggest that non-reinforcing stimuli be used with caution as demonstrated in the case of Nanna. The decrease in responding that was observed when a non-reinforcing stimulus was presented contingent on task engagement is a finding similar to that obtained by Roane, Fisher, and McDonough (2003). In the study conducted by Roane et al (2003) responding decreased while a for Nanna.…”

“…The decrease in responding that was observed when a non-reinforcing stimulus was presented contingent on task engagement is a finding similar to that obtained by Roane, Fisher, and McDonough (2003). In the study conducted by Roane et al (2003) responding decreased while a for Nanna.…”

“…Roane et al (2003) determined that the decrease in responding that was observed during the reward contingency was attributable to punishment in which the presentation of a preferred stimulus interrupted a task that was relatively more preferred. Roane et al (2003) suggested that the subsequent increase in responding that was observed when the reward contingency was withdrawn is indicative of behavioral contrast, specifically punishment contrast. In other words, an increase in responding for a reinforcer (i.e., a task that is automatically reinforcing) occurs following exposure to punishment (interruption of the automatically reinforcing task).…”

A case study in the misrepresentation of applied behavior analysis in autism: The gernsbacher lectures

“…These include the Juniper Gardens Children's Project for youth, school, and community development (Hall, Schiefelbusch, Greenwood, & Hoyt, 2006) and Achievement Place for juvenile offenders (i.e., the Teaching Family Model; Wolf, Kirigin, Fixsen, Blase, & Braukmann, 1995), both of them in collaboration with the Bureau of Child Research, now the Schiefelbusch Institute for Life Span Studies (Schiefelbsuch & Schroeder, 2006;see Baer, 1993a;Goodall, 1972). 2 Applied behavior analysis involves an integration of research and application, including use-inspired basic research (i.e., basic research in the interests of application; e.g., stimulus control of stereotyped behavior; Doughty, Anderson, Doughty, Williams, & Saunders, 2007), discovery research (i.e., research on unplanned findings; e.g., on the overjustification effect; Roane, Fisher, & McDonough, 2003), and translational research (i.e., the translation of basic research into practice; e.g., reinforcer magnitude and delay; Lerman, Addison, & Kodak, 2006). In the main, however, ABA addresses atypical behavior (e.g., stereotypy; Reeve, Reeve, Townsend, & Poulson, 2007), methods for its assessment and analysis (e.g., functional assessment and analysis; R. H. Thompson & Iwata, 2007), behavior-change procedures (e.g., desensitization for phobias; Ricciardi, Luiselli, & Camare, 2006), packages of behavior-change procedures (e.g., self-management; peer-mediated treatments; Stahmer & Schreibman, 1992), and comprehensive programs of treatment (e.g., early intensive behavioral interventions; T. Smith, Groen, & Wynn, 2000).…”