Self- versus Investigator-Administered Presumed Fluency Reinforcing Stimuli

Abstract

The effects of self-administered and investigator-administered presumed fluency reinforcing monetary rewards for perceived fluency increases on the disfluency frequency rate of 17 adult stutterers were studied. Subjects read aloud during 11 one-minute segments under three conditions: one in which no reinforcer was administered at the end of each one-minute segment, a self-administered reinforcement condition, and an investigator-administered reinforcement condition. Although less stuttering was found in the two experimental conditions (with significantly less stuttering occurring in the self-administered fluency reinforcing condition than in the control condition), an increase in stuttering was observed in those reading segments which followed the administration of presumed fluency reinforcing stimuli. These results were interpreted to suggest that although the concept of self-reinforcement may be clinically useful, the operant learning paradigm may be insufficient in providing an adequate description of the events taking place following the administration of fluency contingent reinforcing or punishing stimuli.

Management of children who stutter

“…On the other hand, a number of authors had been suspicious of operant conditioning as a treatment for stuttering for some time, as noted by Daly and Kimbarow (1978). For example, Wingate (1959), Biggs & Sheehan (1969), and Cross and Cooper (1976) all believed that decreases in stuttering that appeared to be caused by operant means were actually just the result of "calling the speakers' attention to their disfluencies" (Daly & Kimbarow, 1978, p. 595). Daly and Kimbarow (1978) replicated the Cooper, Cady, and Robbins (1970) study with school-age children.…”