Semester

Summer

Date of Graduation

2022

Document Type

Thesis

Degree Type

MS

College

Eberly College of Arts and Sciences

Department

Psychology

Committee Chair

Kathryn Kestner

Committee Co-Chair

Claire St. Peter

Committee Member

Claire St. Peter

Committee Member

Barry Edelstein

Abstract

Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) is a reinforcement schedule used in behavior analytic procedures aimed at decreasing various forms of challenging behavior. DRO commonly includes a reinforcement component and an extinction component; a reinforcer is delivered on an interval-based schedule dependent on the omission of a target behavior and the reinforcer is withheld following the occurrence of the target behavior (i.e., extinction). Although interventions using DRO can be effective for challenging behavior, procedures that include extinction can at times be impractical or lead to undesirable side effects. A DRO schedule can be implemented without extinction, but previous research has shown limited utility of this tactic when a function-based reinforcer is delivered contingent on challenging behavior and a non-function-based reinforcer is delivered for meeting the omission-interval requirement (e.g., effective suppression of challenging behavior in a small proportion of participants). One potential solution would be to use an asymmetrical DRO arrangement in which meeting the omission requirement results in a greater magnitude reinforcer than the target behavior that continues to produce a lesser magnitude reinforcer. A growing field of literature has shown that another form of differential reinforcement, differential reinforcement of alternative behavior, can result in decreases in challenging behavior in the absence of extinction with asymmetrical reinforcers arranged by manipulating parameters such as magnitude, immediacy, and quality. This experiment examined the effects of whole-interval DRO with and without asymmetrical magnitude of reinforcement for the omission and emission of the target response. First, target responding was reinforced during baseline. In one treatment condition, a higher magnitude of points was delivered contingent on the absence of the target behavior. In another condition, the magnitude of points for engaging in the target behavior and omitting the target behavior was symmetrical (i.e., the same number of points). In the final condition, the delivery of points contingent on engaging in the target behavior was discontinued (i.e., extinction) and the higher magnitude of points was delivered contingent on the absence of the target behavior. The results obtained do not support the use of DRO without extinction using an asymmetrical magnitude of reinforcement to decrease a target response. Extinction may be a necessary component for DRO schedules to be effective. If there are clinical limitations to implementing extinction, DRO may not be a viable intervention.

Download

Share

COinS