Schedule-Induced and Operant Mechanisms that Influence Response Variability: A Review and Implications for Future Investigations

Abstract

Response variability, a fundamental characteristic of behavior, may be in some cases an induced effect of reinforcement schedules. Research on schedule-induced response variability has shown that continuous reinforcement results in less variability than intermittent reinforcement schedules. Studies on the effects of intermittency of reinforcement, periodicity of reinforcement, and type of schedule have resulted in mixed findings. Contingencies have also been arranged to directly influence operant response variability. These include lag reinforcement schedules, differential reinforcement of novel behavior, differential reinforcement of less frequent behavior, and percentile reinforcement schedules. These procedures are discussed in terms of practicality and implications for use in applied settings. Contingencies and treatment packages that indirectly influence response variability are addressed in terms of response allocation, response generalization, and response covariation. Studies on the effects of a variety of other variables on response variability are also reported, such as levels of food deprivation and drugs. Finally, directions for applied research in response variability are suggested.Traditionally, behavioral variability has been considered an intrinsic, uncontrollable characteristic of behavior or a result of unforeseen, uncontrolled variables (Neuringer, 2002). As a result, the identification of methods to reduce the effects of potential sources of variability has been an important component of much research (Sidman, 1960). Alternatively, behavioral variability itself has been a recent topic of research and can have important implications, both theoretical and practical. From a theoretical perspective, such research has provided behavior analysts with a basis for the investigation of topics considered to be out of the realm of learning theory, such as creativity and originality (Marr, 2003). From a practical standpoint, the identification of conditions that lead to, maintain, or decrease response variability should aid in the refinement of existing practices and the development of new procedures that help reduce stereotypy among the clinical population. Such procedures could 430 LEE ET AL. be used to increase generative language, problem-solving skills, creative play, and normalistic social interactions.Although a behavior analysis of creative behavior is difficult, it is not new. Maltzman (1960) provided one of the earlier reviews of research in which people were taught "original" behavior. More recently, Shahan and Chase (2002) provided a review of behavioral concepts (e.g., adduction) that influence response variability and discussed how they relate to creativity and language. The concepts included stimulus generalization, conceptual behavior, and verbal operants. Neuringer (2002) provided an in-depth review of various procedures, noted their implications for treatment in applied settings, and discussed the sources of variability. Marr (2003) has recently rebutted traditional criticisms of a beha...

Reinforcing saccadic amplitude variability in a visual search task

“…Our findings confirm and extend previous results from behavioral studies showing that reinforcement contingencies can control the variability of response sequences (for reviews, see Lee et al, 2007;Neuringer, 2002Neuringer, , 2009. Indeed, various levels of variability in sequences of keys pecks and levers presses have been reinforced in animals (e.g., Machado, 1989Machado, , 1992Page & Neuringer, 1985) as well as in manual response sequences in humans (e.g., Hopkinson & Neuringer, 2003;Lee, McComas, & Jawor, 2002;Neuringer, 1986;Neuringer & Voss, 1993;Souza, Pontes, & AbreuRodrigues, 2012).…”

“…Without this manipulation the reinforcement rates might have been different in the frequent-contingency condition and in the rare-contingency condition which could affect behavioral variability independently of the operant contingencies in force, an effect that has been reported in other preparations (Grunow & Neuringer, 2002;Lee, Sturmey, & Fields, 2007;Neuringer, 2002). Furthermore, to prevent participants from moving their eyes back and forth between the same two items, the target presentation could not occur if the participant returned to the item previously fixated.…”

“…In this situation, the reinforcement contingencies would enforce the systematic relation between an eye movement sequence and the target detection at the end of every trial. This systematic reinforcement might lead to repeating the same saccade sequences, and it is well established that continuous reinforcement per se (i.e., when every response is followed by a reinforcing consequence) increases response stereotypy (Antonitis, 1951;Boulanger, Ingebos, Lahak, Machado, & Richelle, 1987;Lee et al, 2007). In these conditions, varying may be costly as it increases the risk of missing a reinforcer (Gharib, Gade, & Roberts, 2004).…”

A Review of Behavioral Strategies and Support Considerations for Assisting Persons with Difficulties Transitioning from Activity to Activity

“…For example, differential reinforcement of variability and lag reinforcement schedules, in which reinforcement is contingent upon the person displaying behavior that is novel or different from previous responses (Miller and Neuringer 2000;Lee et al 2007), have been used with persons with autism to increase diverse play behaviors and to decrease sameness behaviors such as time engaged in restricted behaviors and perseveration with objects (Boyd et al 2011). Also, there is a growing body of literature on the use of social scripts to increase social initiations, expand verbal repertoires, and ease participation into conversation (Ganz et al 2012;Lee and Sturmey 2014;Stevenson et al 2000).…”

Applied Behavior Analysis for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders

“…In addition, the increase in variations should then create more contact with natural reinforcement, and thus the response class will be more likely to be maintained in the natural environment. The basic and applied literature has a number of articles that show that response variability can be increased using either extinction and/or direct reinforcement (Lee, Sturmey, & Fields, 2007). Despite this, the research with children with autism, especially in applied situations, is not as extensive.…”