Semester

Spring

Date of Graduation

2026

Document Type

Dissertation

Degree Type

PhD

College

Eberly College of Arts and Sciences

Department

Psychology

Committee Chair

Kathryn Kestner

Committee Member

P. Raymond Joslyn

Committee Member

Claire St. Peter

Committee Member

Kimberly Floyd

Committee Member

Kathleen Morrison

Abstract

Reinforcement schedule thinning, a critical component when addressing target behavior using differential reinforcement of alternative behavior schedules, aims to decrease alternative reinforcement rates while maintaining suppression of a target response (Davis et al., 2023; Hagopian et al., 2011). When multiple response options are available, manipulating the relative unit price across options alters the relative efficiency with which reinforcement is obtained and can shift responding toward an alternative behavior. Thus, altering the relative unit price can be a beneficial tactic when reinforcement for a target behavior cannot be withheld. Using concurrent-schedule arrangements, two experiments evaluated the conditions under which target response suppression was maintained across different schedule-thinning procedures with unit-price manipulations for the alternative response. In Experiment 1, the unit price was progressively increased by increasing the alternative response requirement while maintaining a constant reinforcer magnitude. Once target responding increased, the highest unit price for the alternative response that maintained target response suppression was tested across different response requirements. First, this unit price was tested at the terminal schedule. For participants whose target responding was not suppressed at the requirements, the same price was evaluated at the highest alternative response requirement at which suppression had previously failed during thinning. These modifications suppressed target responding at the terminal schedule for three of six participants (50%) or at the schedule at which target responding previously increased for two of three participants (66.67%). During Experiment 2, the alternative response unit price was held constant and target responding remained suppressed throughout thinning. When the terminal schedule was met, the alternative response unit price gradually increased by systematically decreasing the reinforcer magnitude at the terminal response requirement. Target responding then increased when its unit price was lower (33.33% of participants), equal (50%), or higher (16.67%) than the alternative. These preliminary results indicate that manipulating the unit price may shift behavior toward the lower-priced option, helping maintain target response suppression throughout schedule thinning. However, the extent to which the relative unit price, including response requirements and reinforcer magnitudes, needed to be adjusted to produce suppression varied on an individual basis. Future work is needed to assess the generalizability of the procedure in three main areas: (a) assessing whether target response suppression is maintained during thinning across multiple differences in the relative response requirements and reinforcer magnitudes, (b) evaluating the extent to which an extended history with a lower alternative response unit price affects behavior, and (c) determining when additional reinforcer manipulations are needed to further thin the schedule while maintaining suppression of the target response.

Download

Share

COinS