Reducing attention‐maintained behavior through the use of positive punishment, differential reinforcement of low rates, and response marking

Abstract

A differential reinforcement of low (DRL) rates procedure was implemented as a changing criterion design with positive punishment and response marking to reduce attention-maintained behavior of screaming, profanity, and disruptive behaviors of three adolescent males. One participant was diagnosed with static encephalopathy and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and severe mental retardation, the other two were diagnosed with Down syndrome, one with moderate mental retardation, and the other with severe mental retardation. Through response marking, a verbal warning was delivered immediately following the initial occurrence of a target behavior. A special token (positive punishment) was immediately delivered with a verbal cue and placed on a behavior board following the next occurrence of that behavior. Appropriate requests (hand-raising) for attention was acknowledged and reinforced with verbal praise. The DRL procedure, combined with positive punishment and response marking, was successful in decreasing the frequency of targeted behaviors amongst all participants.

The Effects of the Good Behavior Game With General-Education High School Students

“…One problem with some teachers' choice of individualized discipline procedures for disruptive behavior is that students may find the consequence reinforcing. Some students' disruptive behaviors may be maintained by attention, and for these students, attention for appropriate behavior may be necessary to reinforce the appropriate behavior and avoid disruption (Shaw & Simms, 2009). In other situations, a teacher may choose to interrupt ongoing instruction by sending a disruptive student out of the class and to the office.…”

A laboratory comparison of two variations of differential‐reinforcement‐of‐low‐rate procedures

“…The second DRL variation defines a contingency between responding and a reinforcer following the elapse of a predetermined interval as long as the overall rate within that interval is below a predetermined criterion (Catania, 2013). In some cases, the absence of responding is considered an acceptable dimension, and the characteristic features of maintaining low rates during the DRL schedule are ignored (e.g., Bird, Hepburn, Rhodes, & Moniz, 1991;Hagopian, Kuhn, & Strother, 2009;Shaw & Simms, 2009;Turner, Green, & Braunling-McMorrow, 1990).…”

Using Differential Reinforcement of Low Rates to Reduce Children's Requests for Teacher Attention

“…However, many of the studies employing DRL have targeted behaviors that would probably not be considered acceptable, even at reduced rates. Examples include physical and verbal aggression (Alderman & Knight, 1997; Shaw & Simms, 2009; Turner et al, 1990), property destruction (Shaw & Simms, 2009), and classroom disruptions (Deitz, 1977; Deitz & Repp, 1973). Although a specific benefit of DRL schedules is that they lend themselves to changes in criteria so behavior may be gradually reduced to zero levels (and thus the schedule can be switched to differential reinforcement of other behavior; DRO), it seems important to provide empirical validation of interventions for the range of behaviors they are intended to address (e.g., those behaviors that are acceptable at low rates but not at high rates).…”