effects of a backscratch contingency of reinforcement for table serving on social interaction with...

BEHAVIOR THERAPY 6, 220-229 (1975)

Effects of a Backscratch Contingency of Reinforcement for Table Serving on Social Interaction

with Severely Retarded Girls

LARRY WILLIAMS, GARRY L. MARTIN,

STEWART M C D O N A L D , LARRY HARDY

AND SR. LISA LAMBERT

University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2M6

Social interaction within two dyads of severely retarded girls was observed under conditions of no reinforcement, individual token and social reinforcement, and a backscratch contingency of token and social reinforcement for table serving. Under the "backscratch" contingency, subject A responded and subject B received the tokens and social reinforcers and viceversa. Each pair was also observed in general ward settings to assess generality of the effects.

Findings indicated that social interaction as defined by the parameters of eye contact, verbalization at normal levels, touching, and pointing, increased between the members of one pair under the backscratch condition and decreased under reversal conditions to individual reinforcement with generalization to another ward setting. Similar but less dramatic effects were observed with the second dyad. Interactions of yelling and hitting remained at zero level throughout. A backscratch contingency appears to be an easily usable technique for generating social interaction among severe retardates.

Many individuals working with retarded subjects have noted that a major difference between severe and moderate retardates is the lack of social interaction found in the former category of residents in institutions (see Whitman, Mercurio, & Caponigri, 1970). Although researchers have obtained increases in social responses of mental patients (see Kale, Kaye, Whelan, & Hopkins, 1968) as a consequence of direct reinforcement and demonstrated generalization to several experimenters, the study by Whitman e t al. appears to be one of the few to describe an operant procedure for generating social interaction between retardates. Buell, Stoddard, Harris, and Baer (1968), Kirby and Toler (1970), and

The authors thank G. H. Lowther, Medical Superintendent at the Manitoba School for Retardates, and the staff at Cedar Cottage for their excellent co-operation during the con- duct of this study. Grateful appreciation is also due Andy Lambert, Madelaine Lambert, May McKinnon, and Duncan McKinnon for their help in collecting the data.

This research was supported in part by Public Health Research Grant 606-7-255 of the National Health Grants Program, Ottawa, Canada.

Reprints may be obtained from either the first or second author at the Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, R3T 2M6.

220

Copyright © 1975 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

EFFECTS OF A BACKSCRATCH CONTINGENCY 221

Zimmerman, Zimmerman, and Russell (1969), however, have all noted increases in social interaction in preschool and retarded children as a result of reinforcement contingencies on other behaviors. Powers and Powers (1971) described an additional operant contingency labeled "backscratch reinforcement TM that generated social interaction between retardates as a side effect.

The Powers and Powers study was an extended investigation of the co-operative social interaction paradigms examined by others (Sidowski, 1957; Sidowski, Wyckoff, & Taboury, 1956, and Boren, 1966). One of the interesting but unquantified aspects of this study was the observation that the backscratch condition produced increased social interaction between the partners within each dyad. It was suggested by Powers and Powers that further study in this area might concentrate on "social interaction" as the primary dependent variable.

The present experiment was designed to examine the effects of the backscratch contingency for a work task on the social interaction of two pairs of severely retarded girls, and to assess generalization effects.

METHOD

Subjects Four subjects were selected and grouped in two pairs, one pair from the institutional cot-

tage area of the Manitoba School for Retardates and one pair from a community halfway- house (Martin & Lowther, 1972) in Portage la Prairie, Manitoba. The subjects' ages were 19, 23, 16, and 18 and had IQ's of 22, 20, 31, and 34. Two of the subjects had resided at the Manitoba School for 9 yr while the other subjects had resided there 16 yr and 5 yr, respectively. All were identified as trainable, with an original diagnosis of severely retarded.

All subjects had participated in the on-going operant training routines at the cottage for improving grooming (Treffry, Martin, Samels, & Watson, 1970), dressing (Martin, Kehoe, Bird, Jensen, & Darbyshire, 1971), and bed-making behavior (Martin, England, & Eng- land, 1971) for approximately 3 yr. None had received previous experience on the backscratch schedule of reinforcement.

Apparatus Ear plugs and a small cassette tape recorder and tape, on which was prerecorded the

words "observe" and "record", were used throughout the study. These words came in in-

1 Definition of Backscratch Contingency: "Backscratch contingency" is a term used to describe a contingency of reinforcement between a partnership of subjects (usually a dyad). Under a "backscratch contingency", subject A responds but subject B receives the consequence (the reinforcer). When subject B responds subject A receives the consequence. Any usual reinforcer can be used as the consequence for any defined response the experimenter wishes to study. Backscratch contingency does not refer to the reinforcing stimulus situation of having one's back "scratched." However, such a reinforcer could be given out on a "backscratch" schedule. The term "backscratch" was coined and is best understood by recalling the euphemism of co-operation: "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours."

222 WILLIAMS ET AL.

tervals 10 sec apart such that the word "observe" would occur, 10 sec would elapse, and the word "record" would be heard. Plastic poker chips were used as tokens. Cookies and other dessert items functioned as back-up reinforcers. Data sheets containing 120 intervals with every sixth interval numbered, coinciding with every sixth record tape interval, were used.

Procedure

The six experimenters (either psychology students or psychiatric nurses) were prepared for administration of treatment and for collection of reliable observations through three preexperimental discussion sessions and two practice sessions. During these sessions the experimenter practiced observing and recording behaviors outlined by a behavioral code and practiced giving out tokens contingent upon appropriate serving behaviors while still observing and recording social interaction.

Experimental sessions were conducted daily during the evening meal between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM at Cedar cottage. Prior to the program, all four subjects had been taught by the general staffto set tables in the dining room and serve meals to the rest of the children in the cottage. During the meal the subjects watched over their respective tables, removed dirty dishes, and served desserts (much like waitresses in a restaurant). When the meal was finished and their tables cleared, the servers would then serve and eat their own meals.

The experimenters present were positioned by the tables as shown in Fig. 1. Experi- menter one observed, recorded, and consequated relevant behaviors of pair one. Experi- menter two observed, recorded, and consequated relevant behaviors of pair two. Experi- menter three observed and recorded relevant behaviors of both pairs, alternating each day from one to the other and thus providing interobserver reliability. Both subjects in a given pair were observed simultaneously. All six experimenters rotated through these three posi- tions numerous times throughout the study.

The experimenters recorded the social interaction emitted by each subject during the observation periods via a Behavioral Code. 2 The recording was done during alternate 10-sec

Lori

FIG. 1. Table arrangement of servers in dining room.

2 The following six behavioral categories were defined and coded for observation during the study:

Eye contact-Looking at partner so that eye contact occurred; Pointing-Pointing at partner, while communicating or attempting to do so; Touching-Any physical contact that was judged as not accidental; Verbalizing-Verbalizing or talking to partner (com- mands, questions, etc.); Hit t ing-Hitt ing partner with sufficient force to be judged a hit rather than a touch; Yelling-Yelling at partner above normal level of talking.


intervals such that the "observation" intervals were used for observing the subjects, while "record" intervals were used for recording the observations, for reinforcing appropriate serving behavior, and occasionally for communication between experimenters. Social interaction behaviors emitted during observation intervals were recorded only as having occurred or not occurred.

During the entire study the experimenters were instructed to remain "neutral" to any social interaction observed. That is, after reinforcing table serving they simply returned to their observation seat and continued taking data. In this way we attempted to eliminate extraneous reinforcement for social interaction per se by experimenter bias.

Baseline

Sessions began when the servers (along with three other servers not used in the study) entered the dining room at meal times and terminated after 120 observation intervals (a total of 40 rain). During the baseline conditions the social interaction of each pair of subjects was recorded during table setting and serving. Experimenters acted only as observers and did not consequate any behaviors.

Individual Reinforcement

During this condition a subject was reinforced with a poker chip for appropriate serving behavior at the following times:

1. After the table had been completely set, providing the subject put out all the sil- verware properly within 5 min of commencement of the table setting;

2. Three times during the meal at approximately 10-min intervals with a range of 5 to 15 min (the experimenter would begin watching for an opportunity to reinforce appropriate serving behavior following 5 min after the previous reinforcer);

3. At the end of the meal when the table had been cleared off. Thus, each subject was reinforced a total of five times per meal. Throughout the study,

the tokens that had been earned by a subject were kept in a cup near her until the session was completed and then tokens were "cashed in."

Backscratch Reinforcement

After 10 sessions of individual reinforcement during which each subject had been reinforced with poker chips for her own serving behaviors the backscratch contingency was in- troduced for Lori and Agnes (pair two), while Marion and Rodeena (pair one) remained on the individual schedule for 10 more sessions. The backscratch procedure was the same as that used in the individual reinforcement sessions, with the exception that whenever subject A of a dyad responded appropriately (serving behavior), subject B of the dyad would receive the reinforcer (poker chip), and whenever subject B responded appropriately subject A would receive the reinforcer. The introduction of this contingency was staggered for the two pairs in order to provide an additional measure of control. In this way it was made possible to assess whether social interaction increases were solely due to the backscratch condition, or if they might be observed in one pair as a function of increases in social interaction between the other pair that was exposed to the backscratch schedule.

Generalization to Ward

Periodically during this study observations were taken in the general ward situations for each pair. Pair one was observed in Cedar cottage and pair two was observed at the community residence. Typically these were conducted at approximately 7:30 PM to 8:30 PM just prior to bedtime when all the residents were given "juice and cookies" in the main TV room and/or in the dining room during prebedtime clean-up at the institutional cottage, and

224 W I L L I A M S ET AL.

in the living room at the halfway house. These sess ions were conducted as described for the baseline condition, i.e., two observers using data sheets and the tape recorder.

Reversals and Replications The backscra tch condit ion was applied to each pair twice during the s tudy with a return

to the individual re inforcement condition after each application. Al though sess ions were conducted daily, fewer sess ions are reported for the pair of subjects f rom the communi ty res idence as they did not always return to Ceda r cottage for their evening meal.

Reliability It was the subjective judgment of the first au thor upon observat ion of the subjects in the

s tudy prior to its onse t that they failed to interact at all during the course o f a meal. For this reason the individual re inforcement condition was viewed as a form of baseline for social interaction even though theoretically the adaptat ion observat ion period was the true baseline. For this reason no reliability check was conducted for the baseline condition.

Reliability checks were calculated for individual and backscra tch condit ions by dividing the total number of agreements by agreements plus d isagreements during the 120 observation intervals in one sess ion and multiplying the results by 100 (see Table 1). Only sess ions in which target behaviors occurred were used for this measure . Reliabilities were calculated for each behavior across 120 observat ion intervals.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Throughout the experiment, hitting and yelling never occurred and thus these measures were not graphed. The salient feature of this study,

T A B L E 1 INTEROBSERVER RELIABILITY MEASURES FOR EACH SUBJECT'S INTERACTION

FOR THE TWO EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS a

Pair 1 Pair 2

Marion Rodeena Agnes Lori Phase of Type of

exper iment interaction No. % No. % No. % No. %

Individual Eye contact Reinforcement Cont ingency Pointing

Verbalization Touching

Backscra tch Eye contact Reinforcement Cont ingency Pointing

Verbalization

Touching

3 100 3 100 4 100 3 100 1 8 6

. . . . 1 100 1 100

1 I 0 0 1 100 1 100 1 100

. . . . 1 100 - - - -

1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 90 1 90 1 83 1 83 2 100 2 100 1 100 1 87 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 80

1 83 1 66

1 100 1 100 - - - - 1 100

a A dash entry in the table indicates that the behavior was at a zero level during those sess ions that in terobserver reliabilities were taken.


BASELINE

2 5 -

2 0 -

15-

I0 -

5 -

0 L~_ _

z25 - o

~ 20 -

I O -

5 ~

o .2=~%

o L_

INDIVIDUAL I BACK

• EYE CONTACT x VERBALIZATION

& POINTLNG

MEAL TIME SESSIONS

SCRATCH N~V BACKSCRATCH lI I IN~IIV

X

. . . . . . , . . . . & . . . . ,

I0 15

. . . . . . . ~

GENERALIZATION TO WARD

! ' × F ~ . . . . : : . __ - ' ±±± ±±

~ " B0 25 50 55 40 45 50

SESSIONS

FIG. 2. Frequency distribution of Marion's interaction by condition. Each data point represents the number of observation intervals in which a target behavior occurred at least once over 120 such observation intervals within each session.

as shown in Figs. 2, 3, 4, and 5, was the increase in desirable social interactions as defined by eye contact, verbalization, touching, and pointing as a consequence of backscratch reinforcement. During the initial four baseline sessions, when no reinforcement was used, there was no social interaction in either dyad except for a small amount on the ward between pair one. During individual reinforcement, social interaction was relatively unaffected. Interactions of pair two were similar.

In the initial backscratch condition interactions in pair one were no- ticeably affected, and generalized (to a lesser extent) to the ward. In- teractions in pair two were less pronounced with no generalization effects.

With the introduction of the second individual reinforcement condition, interaction in pair one, both in sessions and on the ward, dropped to zero. This effect was not realized with pair two in that during the latter part of the second individual reinforcement condition, interaction increased slightly. This appeared to be related to the behavior of Lori. After the first return to the individual reinforcement condition Lori was

2 2 6 WILLIAMS ET AL.

MEAL TIME SESSIONS BASELINE INDIVIDUAL I BACK [NBV BACKSCRATCH II INDIV

20 A POINTING

_zO GENERALIZATION TO WARD },:

i i / i ~ ,5 - ! i i "

I !

i i I0-

5 / / \

5 I0 15 20 25 30 35 4 0 4 5 50 SESSIONS

FIG. 3. Frequency distribution of Rodeena's interaction by condition. Each data point represents the number of observation intervals in which a target behavior occurred at least once over 120 such observation intervals within each session.

observed to ask the staff and each experimenter present why she "couldn't have Agnes' chips"? Subsequent extinction by the experimenters for this behavior is felt to have generated the increase in Lori's interaction attempts during this condition.

The greatest effect of the backscratch condition was shown during its replication. Interaction in pair one increased greatly with a corre- sponding generalization. Rodeena (of pair one) verbalized on the general ward at very high levels (see Fig. 3). The results for pair two are similar but not as pronounced. Some effects may have been missed due to a lack of observations. With removal of the second backscratch condition both pairs decreased in interaction to near zero both in sessions and on the ward.

In the present experiment both pair one and pair two received the same amount of experimental condition time and attention and received the same consequences for their behavior throughout the study. How- ever, the measured increase in social interaction could be due, in part at


MEAL TIME SESSIONS

BASELINE INDIV I BACKSCRATCH I INDIV I ] BACKSCRATCH 11 INDIV ]]I ii" x VERBALIZATION

2 0

,o I I

• r , ,,,' ,,&_

0c ~" ~__ o TOUCHING O o TOUCHING •

__ GENERALIZATION TO WARD z °25 r

u~ 20

le t

0

5 IO % 15 20 25

SESSIONS

x f i x

i

o I o ~ L 310 35 410 4 5 50

FIG. 4. Frequency distribution of Lori's interaction by condition. Each data point represents the number of observation intervals in which a target behavior occurred at least once over 120 such observation intervals within each session.

least, to the instructions included in the contingency. That is, if one subject is told she is receiving tokens for another subject 's behavior, social interaction might be facilitated whether the tokens are really contingent upon the partner 's behavior or not. Fur ther investigation on such co- operative contingencies might study this effect.

Although there are not as much data for the second dyad, the generalization effect seems reduced with them. This could be due to the stimulus control of the institutional dining room over the effect, as the halfway house was a much different environment.

The advantage of the backscratch contingency over direct reinforcement of social interaction for generating social interaction is that the backscratch contingency can be applied to an easily recognized behavior, such as completion of setting a table. This finding, that the backscratch contingency facilitated an increase in desirable social interaction, would seem to be of great usefulness to personnel interested in the development of "socializing" retardates.

228 WILLIAMS ET AL.

MEAL TIME SESSIONS

BASELINE [NDIM I BACKSCRATCH INDIV B

25 - oEYE CONTACT [

b

× VlERI~UZATION A Im~NTING

20 -

15-

IO-

t~l o TOUCHING

~ 2 5

a::2o

~B

5

O = :

°o~-~ °,~

B~CKSCRATCH

~ ~--~, ~,~' ~,

GENERALIZATION TO WARD

[NDIV

/

o

2(3 25 50 35 40 45

SESSIONS

50

FIG. 5. Frequency distribution of Agnes' interaction by condition. Each data point represents the number of observation intervals in which a target behavior occurred at least once over 120 such observation intervals within each session.

REFERENCES BOREN, J. J. An experimental social relation between two monkeys. Journal of the Experi-

mental Analysis of Behavior, 1966, 9, 691-700. BUELL, J., STODDARD, P., HARRIS, F. R., & BAER, O. M. Collateral social development

accompanying reinforcement of outdoor play in a pre-school child. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 167-173.

KALE, R. J., KAYE, J. H., WHELAN, P. A., • HOPKINS, B. L. The effects of reinforcement on the modification, maintenance, and generalization of social responses of mental patients. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1969, 1, 307-314.

KIRBY, F. D., & TOLER, C. H., JR. Modification of pre-school isolate behavior: A case study. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1970, 3, 309-314.

MARTIN, G, L., ENGLAND, G., & ENGLAND, K. The use of backward chaining to teach bed-making to severely retarded girls: A demonstration. PsychologicalAspects of Dis- ability, 1971, 18, 35-40.

MARTIN, G., KEHOE, B.~ BIRD, E., JENSEN, V., & DARBYSHIRE, M. Operant conditioning of dressing behavior of severely retarded girls. Mental Retardation, 1971, 9, 29-33.

MARTIN, G. L., & LOWTHER, G. H. Kin Kare: A community residence for graduates of an operant program for severe and profound retardates in a large institution. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Behavior Modification, Minneapolis, Minnesota, October, 1972.


POWERS, R., & POWERS, E. Responding of retarded children on a backscratch schedule of reinforcement. Psychological Aspects of Disability, 1971, 18, 27-34.

SIDOWSKI, J. B. Reward and punishment in a minimal social situation. Journal of Experi- mental Psychology, 1957, 54, 318-326.

SIDOWSKI, J. B., WYCHOFF, L. B., • TABOURY, L. The influence of reinforcement and punishment in a minimal social situation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 52, 115-119.

TREEFRY, n . , MARTIN, G., SAMELS, J., & WATSON, C. Operant conditioning of grooming behavior of severely retarded girls. Mental Retardation, 1970, 8, 29-33.

WHITMAN, T., MERCURIO, J. R., & CAPONIGRI, VICKI. Development of social responses in two severely retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1970, 3, 133-138.

ZIMMERMAN, E. H., ZIMMERMAN, J., & RUSSELL, C. D. Differential effects of token reinforcement on instruction following behavior in retarded students instructed as a group. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1969, 2, 101-112.

effects of a backscratch contingency of reinforcement for table serving on social interaction with...

Documents