Rules and Statements of Reinforcer Loss in Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior

Abstract

Providing a rule regarding consequences for behavior can increase the efficacy of differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) procedures in the treatment of severe problem behavior (Watts, Wilder, Gregory, Leon, and Ditzian, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 680-684, 2013). The purpose of the current study was to replicate and extend the literature on DRO procedures by evaluating the efficacy of rules and statements of reinforcer loss (SRL) in the treatment of severe problem behavior. Conditions included baseline, no rule DRO, rule DRO, and rule DRO with SRL. For 2 of 3 participants, neither the no rule DRO nor the rule DRO condition reduced problem behavior. The rule DRO with SRL condition produced a substantial decrease in problem behavior for all participants, suggesting that a consequent rule enhances the efficacy of DRO. The current study extends the literature on DRO procedures by providing data on nontargeted ("other") behavior. An increase in other behavior was observed for 2 participants.

Relapse of operant behavior after response elimination with an extinction or an omission contingency

“…Omission training, also known as differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO), is a schedule of reinforcement in which reinforcers are delivered contingent on the nonoccurrence of a target response (Reynolds, 1961). Omission is commonly used to treat a wide variety of problem behavior including substance abuse (e.g., contingency management and the therapeutic workplace; Higgins et al, 1991;Silverman et al, 1996), medical noncompliance (e.g., Cuvo, Reagan, Ackerlund, Huckfeldt, & Kelly, 2010;Shabani & Fisher, 2006;Slifer, Avis, & Frutchey, 2008), and problem behavior common in individuals with developmental and intellectual disabilities (e.g., aggression, self-injurious behavior, and disruption; Iannaccone, Hagopian, Javed, Borrero, & Zarcone, 2019). Omission is commonly used to treat a wide variety of problem behavior including substance abuse (e.g., contingency management and the therapeutic workplace; Higgins et al, 1991;Silverman et al, 1996), medical noncompliance (e.g., Cuvo, Reagan, Ackerlund, Huckfeldt, & Kelly, 2010;Shabani & Fisher, 2006;Slifer, Avis, & Frutchey, 2008), and problem behavior common in individuals with developmental and intellectual disabilities (e.g., aggression, self-injurious behavior, and disruption; Iannaccone, Hagopian, Javed, Borrero, & Zarcone, 2019).…”

“…During omission training, the organism must learn to withhold, or inhibit, the target response in order to receive reinforcement because reinforcers are delayed or omitted contingent on the occurrence of the target response. Omission is commonly used to treat a wide variety of problem behavior including substance abuse (e.g., contingency management and the therapeutic workplace; Higgins et al, 1991;Silverman et al, 1996), medical noncompliance (e.g., Cuvo, Reagan, Ackerlund, Huckfeldt, & Kelly, 2010;Shabani & Fisher, 2006;Slifer, Avis, & Frutchey, 2008), and problem behavior common in individuals with developmental and intellectual disabilities (e.g., aggression, self-injurious behavior, and disruption; Iannaccone, Hagopian, Javed, Borrero, & Zarcone, 2019). In addition to their common therapeutic use, omission schedules are abundant in everyday social interactions.…”

“Other” behavior and the DRO: The roles of extinction and reinforcement

“…However, practical and technological constraints may make such an analysis difficult. Responses were categorized to record instances of nontarget‐other responding—a strategy that has proven useful in related research (Iannaccone et al, 2019). However, it is possible that two different topographies of behavior that have different functions could have been recorded as the same behavior, therefore artificially increasing the frequency of a specified nontarget‐other response.…”

“…Research has shown that fixed-time schedules of reinforcement have led to increases in an alternative response (Roane et al, 2001). Although several studies have directly measured other behavior while conducting DRO in an attempt to more closely examine the causal mechanism(s) of DRO (e.g., Iannaccone et al, 2019;Jessel et al, 2015;Leitenberg et al, 1977;Miller & Jones, 1997;Repp & Deitz, 1974;Rey et al, 2020a;Rey et al, 2020b;Thompson et al, 2003), these studies have obtained mixed results on whether other behavior increased during DRO. Jessel et al (2015) empirically evaluated the potential strengthening effects of a DRO procedure on other behavior.…”

The Use of Isolated and Synthesized Latency Functional Analyses in the Assessment and Treatment of Clothing Removal Exhibited by a Child with Autism

“…For this reason, a differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) contingency was also utilized with Billy. In a DRO, an interval of time is determined within which the absence or omission of a target response results in contingent reinforcement (Iannaccone et al, 2020). If the target behavior occurs within the time interval, the interval is reset and the process starts again.…”