Reducing behavior through reinforcement

Deitz, Diane E. D.; Repp, Alan C.

doi:10.1177/074193258300300410

Cited by 28 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One of the most frequently used of these procedures is the differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA). DRA typically involves withholding reinforcers following problem behavior (extinction) and providing reinforcers following appropriate behavior (Deitz & Repp, 1983). Pretreatment identification of the reinforcers that maintain problem behavior (i.e., functional analysis) permits the development of extinction procedures, which, by definition, must match the function of problem behavior (Iwata, Pace, Cowdery, & Miltenberger, 1994).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Investigation of Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior Without Extinction

Athens

Vollmer

2010

J of App Behav Analysis

147

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We manipulated relative reinforcement for problem behavior and appropriate behavior using differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) without an extinction component. Seven children with developmental disabilities participated. We manipulated duration (Experiment 1), quality (Experiment 2), delay (Experiment 3), or a combination of each (Experiment 4), such that reinforcement favored appropriate behavior rather than problem behavior even though problem behavior still produced reinforcement. Results of Experiments 1 to 3 showed that behavior was often sensitive to manipulations of duration, quality, and delay in isolation, but the largest and most consistent behavior change was observed when several dimensions of reinforcement were combined to favor appropriate behavior (Experiment 4). Results suggest strategies for reducing problem behavior and increasing appropriate behavior without extinction.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Investigation of Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior Without Extinction

Athens

Vollmer

2010

J of App Behav Analysis

147

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, there are important questions about using DRO that must be considered if it is to be applied successfully. Among these are questions about the length of the initial time interval to be used, the amount of increase in time interval after each criterion is met, and the duration of training sessions (Deitz & Repp, 1983). …”

Section: Specialized Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A frequently used, nonaversive procedure to decrease and eliminate self-injury is differential reinforcement. There are several differential reinforcement procedures (e.g., Deitz & Repp, 1983), but the one most frequently studied involves the differential reinforcement of other, appropriate behaviors (DRO).…”

Section: Specialized Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding and Managing Self-Injurious Behavior

Zirpoli

Lloyd

1987

Remedial and Special Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As handicapped students are placed in public schools in increasing numbers, teachers are challenged to teach students exhibiting many maladaptive behaviors that they have not previously observed in the classroom. One of these, self-injurious behavior, presents teachers with a unique behavior problem with a complex etiology. Selfinjurious behavior is reviewed in this paper to help educators understand the scope of this maladaptive behavior. The major emphasis of the review is intervention procedures in school settings. SELF-INJURIOUS BEHAVIOR (SIB) is not a behaviorrestricted to the back wards of large, custodial institutions. Nor is it a behavior limited to individuals having severe emotional disorders or mental retardation. Ross and McKay (1979) found self-injurious individuals in group homes, infant day care and senior citizen facilities, prisons, detention homes for children and adolescents, hospitals, university residences, and institutions for individuals having mental and physical handicaps. Investigators report SIB in males and females, in individuals 5 months and older, in nonhandicapped individuals, and in individuals identified as mentally and emotionally handicapped. Ross and McKay (1979) identified 33 terms that have been used in the literature to refer to SIB. The most common terms are self-injury, self-mutilation, and self-destruction. In the present analysis, we use the term self injurious behavior because it is most accurate; not all self-injurious behaviors are mutilative and only suicide is truly self-destructive. Favell, Azrin, et al. (1982) defined SIB as &dquo;a broad array of responses which result in physical damage to the individual displaying the behavior&dquo; (p. 531). Matson (1986) stated that &dquo;because of the repetitive nature of these acts they are similar to stereotyped behaviors in general. It has been hypothesized by many that self-injury probably constitutes a subset of stereotyped responding&dquo; (p. 224). CharacteristicsSelf-injurious behavior has been classified into two types: direct and indirect (

show abstract

“…It also illustrates a teacher' s discovery that reinforcement of desirable conduct (Deitz & Repp , 1983) was more effective than response cost punishment (Walker, 1983) . Moreover, the case shows that simple, low-cost interventions can be highly effective in resolving seemingly intractible problems.…”

Section: ***mentioning

confidence: 99%