Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-lvtdw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-15T00:10:56.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Different Combinations of Continuous and Partial Reinforcement Schedules on Response Persistence in Mentally Handicapped Children

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2009

Kevin J. Tierney  and
Howard V. Smith
Kevin J. Tierney
Affiliation:
University of Ulster at Jordanstown Trinity College, Dublin
Howard V. Smith
Affiliation:
University of Ulster at Jordanstown Trinity College, Dublin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Two experiments investigated the effects on persistence of behaviour in extinction of different training procedures, using mentally handicapped boys who were trained to place objects of different shapes into matching holes in a box for sensory reinforcers. In Experiment 1 two subjects were given three training procedures: (i) a C-C procedure, consisting of 80 trials of continuous reinforcement (CRF); (ii)a P-P procedure, consisting of 80 trials of variable ratio reinforcement (VR5); and (iii) a C-P procedure, consisting of 40 trials on CRF followed by 40 on VR5. Extinction occurred most quickly after C-C training, next quickest after P-P training. In experiment 2 with four boys, C-P training of 160 trials of CRF, followed by 120 trials of VR5, produced quicker extinction than P-P training of 280 trials of VR5 reinforcement. The implications of these results for training persistent behaviour in mentally handicapped people are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , January 1988 , pp. 23 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baumeister, A. A. and Hawkins, W. F. (1966). Extinction and disinhibition as a function of reinforcement schedule with severely retarded children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 3, 343–347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dubanoski, R. A. and Weiner, H. R. (1978). Resistance to extinction: a test of the discrimination hypothesis. Psychological Reports 42, 91–97.Google Scholar
Greenwood, C. R., Hops, H., Delquadri, J. and Guild, J. (1974). Group contingencies for group consequences in classroom management: a further analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 7, 413–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulse, S. H. (1973). Patterned reinforcement. In Bower, G. (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 7). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kallman, W. H., Hersen, M. and O'Toole, D. H. (1975). The use of social reinforcement in a case of conversion reaction. Behavior Therapy 6, 411–413.Google Scholar
Kazdin, A. E. (1984). Behaviour Modification in Applied Settings. Homewood: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
Kazdin, A. E. and Polster, R. (1973). Intermittent token reinforcement and response maintenance in extinction. Behavior Therapy 4, 386–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koegel, R. L. and Rincover, A. (1977). Research on the difference between generalization and maintenance in extra-therapy responding. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 10, 1–12.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. J. and Duncan, C. P. (1956). Effect of different percentages of money reward on extinction of a lever-pulling response. Journal of Experimental Psychology 52, 23–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McBrien, J. A. and Edmonds, M. (1985). Evaluation of an E.D.Y. training course in behavioral techniques for staff working with severely mentally handicapped children. Behavioural Psychotherapy 13, 202–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McBrien, J. A. and Foxen, T. (1981). Training Staff in Behavioral Methods—The E.D.Y. In-Service Course for Mental Handicap Practitioners: Instructor's Handbook. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Mellegren, R. L., Seybert, J. A. and Dyck, D. G. (1978). The order of continuous, partial and nonreward trials and resistance to extinction. Learning and Motivation 9, 359–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, G. L. and Lentz, R. J. (1977). Psychosocial Treatment of Chronic Mental Patients; Milieu versus Social Learning Programs. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Robbins, D. (1971). Partial reinforcement: A selective review of the alleyway literature since 1960. Psychological Bulletin 76, 415–431.Google Scholar
Rusch, F. R. and Kazdin, A. E. (1981). Toward a methodology of withdrawal designs for assessment of response maintenance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 14, 131–140.Google Scholar
Sanders, M. R. and Glynn, T. (1981). Training parents in behavioral self-management: an analysis of generalization and maintenance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 14, 223–237.Google Scholar
Stokes, T. F. and Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 10, 349–367.Google Scholar
Sutherland, N. S., Mackintosh, N. J. and Wolfe, J. B. (1965). Extinction as a function of the order of partial and consistent reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology 69, 56–59.Google Scholar
Zeiler, M. (1977). Schedules of reinforcement: the controlling variables. In Honig, W. H. and Staddon, J. E. R. (Eds.), Handbook of Operant Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.