Chapter 19 Concurrent Contingencies PDF

Preview

Summary

Principles of Behavior by Malott (7th) Ch:19...

Description

Chapter 19: Concurrent Contingencies Natural Contingency - a contingency typically available prior to performance management; not designed to manage performance, usually built-in/automatic, not added -

Not to be confused with unlearned reinforcers

Performance-Management Contingency - a contingency explicitly used to manage performance when the natural contingencies are ineffective/move performance in the wrong direction -

Learned and unlearned reinforcers and aversive conditions may be found in both natural and performance management contingencies

Concurrent Behavioral Contingencies - more than one contingency of reinforcement/punishment is available at the same time -

Does not mean the contingencies are operating at the moment (jumping off building); just because behavior is specified in a contingency, does not mean the behavior is actually happening

ALL CONTINGENCIES ARE IF-THEN STATEMENTS 4 Types of Concurrent Contingencies: 1. Compatible Responses - contingencies may be available concurrently for 2 physically compatible responses

2. Compatible Contingencies - may be available concurrently for a single response -

Compatible contingencies both cause the response frequency to go up/down based on reinforcement/punishment

3. Incompatible Contingencies - may be available concurrently for a single response; 2 incompatible contingencies with a single response -

The contingencies are incompatible in that one causes the response frequency to increase, while the other causes it to decrease

4. Incompatible Responses - contingencies may be available concurrently for 2 physically incompatible responses

When contingencies reinforce alternative non-verbal behaviors instead of verbal behavior, the alternative behaviors increase in frequency; these non-verbal behaviors compete directly with verbal behavior The contingencies that would reinforce verbal behavior may be available at the same time as the competing, concurrent reinforcement contingencies, but the verbal-behavior contingencies lose out 3 Categories of Concurrent Contingencies that Interfere with Language Learning 1. Disruptive Behavior as an Alternative to Verbal Behavior - when contingencies support disruptive behaviors, these behaviors prevent the occurrence of reinforced verbal behaviors (Jimmy kicking/screaming for milk) -

When disruptive behavior is established as an alternative to verbal behavior, the disruptive behavior serves the same function as the verbal behavior

2. Non-Disruptive Behavior as an Alternative to Verbal Behavior - staring, pointing, gesturing can function as nonverbal alternatives to verbal mands; when nonverbal alternatives are reinforced, they go up in frequency - unfortunately, they are incompatible with verbal mands 3. Suppression of Verbal Behavior by Punishment - sometimes adults accidentally punish children’s verbal behavior instead of reinforcing it (Amy yelling at Jimmy) -

Punishment contingencies that suppress verbal behavior may be in effect at the same time as reinforcement contingencies that support verbal behavior

2 more factors interfere with language learning; they both deal with the absence of learn units Learn Unit - an occasion for a response (1), the response (2), and an outcome of that response (3), - essentially a contingency - SIMILAR TO OPPORTUNITY -

The absence of learn units doesn’t specifically involve concurrent contingencies, but learn units are essential to all learning; there are 2 reasons for the absence of learn units 1. No one is around to reinforce verbal behavior 2. Those who are around may not require verbal behavior

-

Fewer learn units = less learning = less/no verbal behavior

Biological Problems that Interfere with Language Learning -

Hearing loss hinders vocal behavior because parental sound is less likely to become a learned reinforcer

Action Rule - to change behavior, use action, not words Continuous Response Avoidance - example of Earl (kid w/brain damage) in book; he had to continue studying to avoid loss of reinforcer -

Patterson used DRI continuous avoidance contingency to treat Earl

Differential Reinforcement of Incompatible Behavior (DRI) - reinforcement is contingent on a behavior that is incompatible with another behavior Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior (DRA) - the replacement of an inappropriate response with a specific appropriate response that produces the same reinforcing outcome -

Works best if we are extinguishing the inappropriate behavior at the same time

DRA vs DRI: -

They may both involve concurrent contingencies for 2 different responses; desirable response and undesirable response

-

For DRA, the reinforcer for the alternative,desirable behavior is always the same as the reinforcer for the original undesirable response; and the original and alternative responses usually are not incompatible

-

For DRI, the original and alternative responses are ALWAYS incompatible, and the reinforcers for the incompatible are usually different

-

We use DRA when we want the person to be able to get the same reinforcer, but appropriately

-

We use DRI when we need an inappropriate behavior to stop, and we don’t care if the person can access the reinforcer maintaining the inappropriate behavior; we introduce a new powerful reinforcement contingency for a behavior incompatible with the inappropriate behavior

Symptom Substitution Myth - problem behaviors are symptoms of an underlying mental illness; so if you get rid of one problem behavior (symptom), another will take its place until you get rid of the underlying mental illness - DOES NOT EXIST Concurrent schedules of Reinforcement for Competing Behaviors - we suppress one behavior that produces one sensory reinforcer, and that leaves the field open for another, less powerful sensory reinforcer to reinforce another behavior -

Sid can’t sleep and write at the same time

Intervention (treatment) Package - the addition/change of several independent variables at the same time to achieve a desired result, without testing the effect of each variable individually

Sometimes it’s more economical to evaluate the effects of each independent variable -

We also might want to evaluate the individual effects of some independent variables if their use were expensive and we anticipated repeated future use

-

Whether or not we use an intervention package, we still have to evaluate our intervention empirically

Bauman and his crew were developing technology - something in between behavior-analytic research and providing a behavioral service -

Goal wasn’t to do a behavioral analysis of each IV

-

We might want to evaluate only the individual effects of some independent variables if their use was expensive and we anticipated future use

Basic researchers often use concurrent schedules of reinforcement to study various preferences; they usually use two concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement for physically incompatible responses -

Most often, researchers use the same reinforcer for both schedules

-

Also use concurrent variable interval schedules to study preference for different types of reinforcers

Matching Law - when two different responses are each reinforced with a different schedule of reinforcement, the RELATIVE frequency of the two responses on two concurrent schedules of reinforcement equals the RELATIVE value of reinforcement on the two schedules of reinforcement -

Matching law allows scientists to describe precisely data produced by a single set of concurrent contingencies AND to predict behavior under novel sets of concurrent contingencies...