Disequilibrium Approaches A newer model! Goal of behavior analysis/operant conditioning • Clarify control of human behavior by reinforcement contingencies – Many techniques have been developed – Used in wide variety of settings • Problem: specifying ahead of time what works: – No a priori way of determining what will be a reinforcer – Makes for problems in applied settings – Even lab research affected by this • What usually do: reinforcer assessments – Very time consuming – Not very accurate Successful approach to a priori assessment should satisfy 3 practical requirements Identification of Rs circumstances should involve: • A small number of simple, nonintrusive procedures – Must be widely applicable – Require no special apparatus – No novel or disruptive stimuli to be introduced • Must be accurate and complete • Result should be adaptable to variety of situations, rather than limited to small number of stimuli, responses or settings Transituational Solution: conceptual Analysis • Meehl, 1950 assumption: – Simplest method for figuring out what works: use what circumstances have worked in the past – If works in one setting, should work in others • Three important assumptions about reinforcing stimuli and their "setting conditions" – Reinforcers and punishers form unique, independent sets of transituationally effective stimuli – Essential function of the contingency = produce temporally proximate pairings between response and reinforcer – Deprivation schedule specifying long-term denial of access to reinforcer = critical setting condition Transituational Solution: conceptual Analysis • Problem: – None of these holds up to data – The assumptions are incorrect! • Reinforcers and punishers are not mutually exclusive or transituational • Premack: Drinking and wheel running could reinforcer each other • Applied settings: this is observed all the time • Temporal contiguity not sufficient to produce reinforcement: • Premack (1965): pairing wheel running w/drinking had no effect in absence of contingency schedule • Appear that contingency is key, not time • Long term deprivation not necessary nor sufficient: short term deprivation works Application problems w/this approach: • STILL is most often used technique • Assessment techniques are intrusive • Not very effective: Reinforcers seem to change across individuals/settings/time • Does not account for satiation effects, etc. • Lacks flexibility, accuracy • Ethical questions when using food, certain punishments Premack's Probability Differential Hypothesis: (Grandma’s Law) • Premack (1959; 1965): distinct improvement over transituational view – A schedule in which a higher probability response is contingent upon a lower probability response will result in reinforcement – If you eat your peas (low prob) then you can have chocolate pudding (high prob) • Important change in concept of reinforcement in several ways: – Reinforcement is related to access to a response – Probability of response determined by probability (duration) of that response in FREE BASELINE • Shows that transituational situation is special case of probabilitydifferential: – Highest probability response contingent upon a lower probability response – As long as is highest probability- should be transituational Premack's Probability Differential Hypothesis: (Grandma’s Law) • Some problems, however: – Incomplete and unclear about several things: – Fails to specify conceptual rules for setting values of contingency schedule:- pair 1:1, 5:1 or what? • Unclear about role of reduction in contingent responding relative to baseline that typically accompanies an increase in instrumental responding • Unclear about role of long-term deprivation Application • Probably most widely used behavioral technique • Popularity due to several desirable characteristics: – Procedures for identification are clear, relatively non-disruptive – More accurate than transituational method – Allows for far wider choices of Sr's and P's • Problems even in applied arena: – Duration of discrete response hard to measure – Duration not always a good measure – Problem in that must always use higher probability responses as reinforcers – Time consuming to measure baselines Response Deprivation and Disequilibrium Approach • Assumption: reinforcement results from adaptation of motivational processes underlying free baseline responding to the performance constraints imposed by a contingency schedule • What's that? – Constraining a behavior (that would naturally occur in free baseline) to a set contingency schedule – Only allowing free baseline behavior to occur at certain levels, rates, times – Restrict free baseline via a contingency schedule • Really looking at molar equilibrium theory: – Free baseline = equilibrium state – Disrupt this equilibrium state via a contingency schedule – Assess free-baseline of instrumental and contingent responding before imposition of contingency schedule Response Deprivation and Disequilibrium Approach • Does NOT view baseline as stable hierarchy of reinforcement value: – Estimate of relative motivation underlying different responses – That is- can change from situation to situation – Idea that just must disrupt baseline ratio and you create behavioral effects • By imposing different contingencies- can create reinforcement and punishment conditions: – Response deficit: reinforcement – Response excess: punishment Response deficits and satiation • Response deficit: I/C >Oi/Oc – If individual maintains instrumental responding at baseline level, would engage in less of baseline level of contingent responding • Baseline pea eating = 0; baseline chocolate pudding eating equals 10 – Contingency changes this: Must eat 2 peas for 1 spoon of chocolate pudding • Thus: if I continue to eat my baseline level of peas (0), I would engage in less than baseline chocolate pudding eating (10) – Must increase pea eating (to 20 peas) to maintain chocolate pudding eating (of 10 spoonfuls) Response deficits and satiation • Response excess: I/C < Oi/Oc – Is the individual maintains instrumental responding at baseline level, would engage in too much of baseline level of contingent responding • Baseline sister hitting = 1; baseline spankings = 0 – Contingency changes this: Must receive 1 spanking for each episode of hitting your sister • If I hit my sister at baseline levels, I would engage in/receive more spankings (+1) than I engaged in/received during baseline (0) – Thus, likely to reduce the number of times I hit my sister (to 0) to maintain receiving 0 spankings. Why an improvement? • Improvement for several reasons: – Specifies rules for setting terms of schedule: – I/C > Oi/Oc for reinforcement effects – I/C < Oi/Oc for punishment effects • • • • I = instrumental response C = contingent response Oi = baseline rate of instrumental response Oc = baseline rate of contingent response • No limitations on units for measuring baseline behaviors, as long as keep same in contingency setting and ratio • Sets NO restrictions on what can be a reinforcer or a punisher • Note: lower probability response can reinforcer higher probability response, as long as setting conditions are met • Shows that long term denial is NOT necessary: – Critical: allows for deprivation or disequilibrium within a session – Immediate deprivation (disruption of ongoing behavior) works – Long term denial is special case of disruption Applications • Several desirable reasons for using: – – – – • Examples: Konarski (1980): – – • Procedures specific Relatively non-disruptive More accurate Allows incredible flexibility- no set reinforcers or punishers Grade school kids Free baseline of coloring or working simple arithmetic problems Konarski (1985): EMH classroom – – Retarded children Working arithmetic problems and writing • Incidental teaching • Behavior contracting: Dougher study (1983) • Good behavior game • Overcorrection: two part negative punishment technique – – Restitution Positive Practice Incidental teaching and the Minimum bliss Point Model Farmer-Dougan, 1998 • Bitonic relationship between rate of reinforcement imposed by a schedule and strength of reinforcement effect – Response rate first increase then decrease as reinforcer rate increases – When schedule provides very high rate of reinforcement (disrupts disequilibrium only slightly) – little change in instrumental responding – When schedule provides very low rate of reinforcement (disrupts disequilibrium to high degree), little net reinforcement effect • Thus, extreme rates of reinforcement should be less effective than moderate rates Can mathematically predict reinforcement effects! • Simple FR schedule: according to minimum distance models, R rate that produced by ratio schedule is equal to: – – – – R1 = predicted rate of response Oi is rate of unconstrained instrumental response Oc is rate of unconstrained contingent response k is number of units reinforcement/response (inverse of FR requirement) A Theoretical Bliss Point Bliss point: Recess vs. Math 120 Minutes of recess 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 Minutes of math problems 100 120 Plotted Bliss point Incidental teaching • Accurately identifies reinforcers and increases generalization and maintenance via use of naturalistic teaching • Involves capturing a teaching moment (Hart and Risley, 1980) – Subject initiates (verbally/physically) toward an item or activity – Teacher immediately imposes contingency such that access to the item/activity is blocked until the contingent response is emitted – Immediate assessment of baseline and immediate imposition of momentary disequilibrium • Question: how often to disrupt? – Minimum bliss models suggest that moderate amounts should be better than high interruption or very low interruption Method • 4 head start preschoolers • Worked 1:1 in workroom at Head Start • Set of toy items for each child, and set of 26 flash cards containing letters A to Z Task: ID letter expressively to gain access to toy • • Manipulated rate of disruption: – – – – – Baseline (0) 25% 50% 75% 100% Results! • Little academic behavior when did not disrupt ( – surprisingly, there was some – but differed by child – Shows differences in baseline rates • Too much disruption = no academic responding! • Moderate levels worked best!! Limitations on/Extensions of Disequilibrium approach • Not completely accurate – Issues with measuring baseline • How long a time horizon? • Consistency across settings? – Measuring baseline can be time consuming – Only takes into account 2 behaviors (I and C), while many more behaviors occur in any contingency setting • Question of time frames: do baselines change w/time? – Does constraining baseline affect or reset baseline? Conclusions • Strong need to predict reinforcement ahead of time – If can't- reinforcement is not a very usable concept – Early theories did not do this very well • Reinforcers and punishers aren't things: – No magic wand – Reinforcement/punishment effects depend upon extent to which contingency schedule constrains the free distribution of responding