honors college colloquium (1)
TRANSCRIPT
A COMPARISON OF RESPONSE-STIMULUS AND STIMULUS-STIMULUS PAIRING PROCEDURES ON
CONDITIONING PEERS AS REINFORCERS
Samantha Lee
Dr. Sacha T. Pence, BCBA-D
BACKGROUND
According to the Center for Disease Control, most children express a desire to interact and communicate with others before the age of 2 (“Important Milestones,” 2014).
However, children with developmental delays may fail to meet this milestone at the same time their peers do (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
Signs of developmental delays first become prevalent in early childhood (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
When detected early, developmental delays are often treated with early intensive behavior interventions (EIBI; Marfo, 1988).
One of the most popular forms of EIBI is applied behavior analysis (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968).
APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS
Reinforcers: stimuli that increase the likelihood of a future behavior occurring when provided contingent on a certain behavior (Skinner, 1938)
Positive reinforcers Candy or snacks
Favorite toys or other activities
Negative reinforcers Taking away demands
Removal of an unpleasant stimulus
Primary reinforcers and secondary reinforcers (Skinner, 1974)
CONDITIONING PROCEDURES
Stimulus-Stimulus Pairing
Unconditioned Stimulus (US) Reinforcer, US Conditioned Stimulus (CS)
Example: Peer Toy, Peer CS
Response-Stimulus Pairing
US UR Reinforcer, US CS, CS Conditioned Response
Example: Peer “Let’s play!” Toy, Peer CS, Peer “Let’s play!”
CONDITIONING SOCIAL STIMULI
Social stimuli: stimuli that evoke responses related to interpersonal relationships Gilbert, Fiske, & Lindzey (1998)
Vaughan & Michael (1982)
Conditioned as reinforcers for people with developmental disabilities or delays to make social interactions more appetitive Ritsner (2010)
Greer, Pistoljevic, Cahill & Du (2011)
Dozier, Iwata, Thomason-Sassi, Worsdell, & Wilson (2012)
CONDITIONING PEERS
Little research has examined if pairing procedures can be used to condition peers as reinforcers. Kodak, Paden, & Dickes (2012)
Taylor et al. (2005)
Conditioning peers as reinforcers could lead to increased observations in appropriate play and communication skills in children with developmental disabilities or delays.
If therapists can successfully condition peers as reinforcers for individuals with social skill deficits, then conditioned peers could be used in a wide variety of treatments to promote the acquisition of appropriate play and communication skills.
Purpose: to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of using stimulus-stimulus and response-stimulus pairing procedures to condition preschool-aged peers as reinforcers for children with developmental delays.
PARTICIPANTS
Carla and Mason
Five years old
Diagnosed with developmental delay
Communicate vocally
Mastered at least five motor commands (e.g., “clap hands”)
Demonstrated low levels of social behavior when interacting with peers
Ashley and Miles
Four years old
Typically developing
Able to follow at least five basic directions (e.g., “Give him the candy.”)
Able to engage in moderate amounts of cooperative plan with peers during classroom observation
SETTING, MATERIALS, AND DATA COLLECTION
Setting: assessment room or cubicle in a local preschool
Materials Pairing Sessions
Red and green stimulus cards
Preferred edibles (Doritos and Oreos for Mason; popcorn, Cheetos, and Fruit Loops for Carla)
Probes
Red, green, and blue stimulus cards
Timer
Divider, three chairs, and two identical sets of toys (Mr. Potato Head, play dishes, and pretend foods)
Data Collection Data was collected on pencil and paper.
All sessions were recorded on video.
Interobserver agreement (IOA) and treatment fidelity data will be collected for at least 33% of sessions.
PREFERENCE ASSESSMENTS
Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement (MSWO; DeLeon & Iwata, 1996)
Seven preferred edibles were presented in an array.
Each participant was told to pick one edible.
The picked item was consumed, remaining items were rearranged, and the participant was again told to pick one item.
The process was repeated until all items were consumed or the participant refused to pick an item.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Popcorn Cheetos Fruit Loops Fritos Crackers Pretzels Goldfish
Per
cent
Sel
ecte
d
Items
Carla
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Doritos Cheetos Skittles Pretzels Oreos Chips Ahoy M&Ms
Per
cent
Sel
ecte
d
Items
Mason
REINFORCER ASSESSMENT: CARLA
Reversal design
Arbitrary task: touch a colored card
Gray: control condition
Yellow: high-preferred item condition (FR-2 Schedule)
Procedure
Deliver rule (“Remember, when you touch the (color) card you get (nothing/high preferred edible.”).
Deliver discriminative stimulus (SD; state “Do this” and provide model response).
Prompt participant to complete task once.
Repeat procedures for forced exposure trial once.
Start timer and continue session to the first break point or for 2 minutes.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Rat
e of
Tar
get
Res
ponse
(s)
Session
Carla
Control Control ControlPopcorn
Fruit Loop Cheetos
REINFORCER ASSESSMENT: MASON
Reversal design
Arbitrary task: step up on a step stool
White sheet of paper: control condition
Blue sheet of paper: high-preferred item condition (FR-1 Schedule)
Procedure
Deliver SD (state “Do this” and provide model response).
Prompt participant to complete task once.
Repeat procedures for forced exposure trial once.
Start timer and continue session to the first break point or for 5 minutes.
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Rat
e of
Tar
get
Res
ponse
(s)
Session
Mason
ControlDoritos Oreos ControlControl
STIMULUS-STIMULUS (SS) PROBES
Ten minutes
Assessment room divided in half
“Peer” side (with Ashley): two chairs, red stimulus card, set of toys
“Alone” side: one chair, blue stimulus card, identical set of toys
4-trial block of forced-exposure trials (2 alternating trials on each side)
After forced-exposure trials, the probe began.
Participant moved to the middle of the assessment room.
Experimenter delivered SD (“Remember, if you want to sit next to Ashley, sit on the red side. If you want to sit by yourself, sit on the blue side.”)
Ashley Alone
“If you want to sit next
to Ashley, sit on the red
side.”
“If you want to sit by
yourself, sit on the blue
side.”
Ashley Alone
“If you want to sit next
to Ashley, sit on the red
side.”
“If you want to sit by
yourself, sit on the blue
side.”
“Remember, if you want to sit next to Ashley, sit on the red
side. If you want to sit by yourself, sit on the blue side.”
SS PAIRINGS
40 trials/session
3 chairs for the participant, Ashley, and the researcher
Red stimulus card
Procedure
Ashley delivers a quasi-randomly selected highly preferred edible in each trial.
5-s interval between each trial
After 5 pairing sessions, a stimulus-stimulus probe for conditioned reinforcement is conducted.
Termination criteria: 50 sessions or spending 70% of a probe with the peer across three consecutive probes
RESPONSE-STIMULUS (RS) PROBES
Ten minutes
Assessment room divided in half
“Peer” side (with Miles): two chairs, green stimulus card, set of toys
“Alone” side: one chair, blue stimulus card, identical set of toys
4-trial block of forced-exposure trials (2 alternating trials on each side)
After forced-exposure trials, the probe began.
Participant moved to the middle of the assessment room.
Experimenter delivered SD (“Remember, if you want to sit next to Miles, sit on the green side. If you want to sit by yourself, sit on the blue side.”)
Miles Alone
“If you want to sit next
to Miles, sit on the green
side.”
“If you want to sit by
yourself, sit on the blue
side.”
Miles Alone
“If you want to sit next
to Miles, sit on the green
side.”
“If you want to sit by
yourself, sit on the blue
side.”
“Remember, if you want to sit next to Miles, sit on the
green side. If you want to sit by yourself, sit on the blue
side.”
RS PAIRINGS
40 trials/session
3 chairs for the participant, Miles, and the researcher
Green stimulus card
Procedure The researcher delivers a quasi-randomly selected mastered motor task to the participant (e.g., “Clap
hands.”).
Researcher uses least-to-most prompting procedures to illicit the correct response from the participant.
Miles delivers a quasi-randomly selected highly preferred edible for each correct response.
The researcher delivers neutral praise (e.g., “Good job.”)
5-s interval between each trial
After 5 pairing sessions, a response-stimulus probe for conditioned reinforcement is conducted.
Termination criteria: 50 sessions or spending 70% of a probe with the peer across three consecutive probes
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Per
cent
Dura
tion (
s)
Sessions
Carla
SS Peer
SS Alone
RS Peer
RS Alone
Baseline Post-Pairing
Probes
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Per
cent
Dura
tion (
s)
Sessions
Mason
SS Peer
SS Alone
RS Peer
RS Alone
Baseline Post-Pairing
Probes
IMPLICATIONS
The study is currently ongoing, so results are inconclusive as of now.
If peers can be conditioned as reinforcers, then practitioners can develop intervention plans simultaneously treating social skill deficits and promoting peer interactions.
Conditioned peers can also deliver other reinforcers and make reinforcement more potent.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Future studies may wish to evaluate ways to condition peers without the presence of an adult during pairing procedures.
Future studies may also wish to examine the effects of conditioning procedures on peers that function as aversive stimuli.
Future studies should seek to evaluate the use of conditioned peers as reinforcers in skill acquisition programs.
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders(5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Baer, D.M., Wolf, M.M., & Risley, T.R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,1, 91-97.
DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A., (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519-533. doi:10.1901/jaba.1996.29-519
Dozier, C. L., Iwata, B. A., Thomason-Sassi, J., Worsdell, A. S., & Wilson, D. M., (2012). A comparison of two pairing procedures to establish praise as a reinforcer. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45, 721-735. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2012.45-721
Gilbert, D., Fiske, S., & Lindzey, G. (1998). The Handbook of Social Psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies.
REFERENCES (CONT.)
Greer, R. D., Pistoljevic, N., Cahill, C., & Du, L., (2011). Effects of conditioning voices as reinforcers for listener responses on rate of learning, awareness, and preferences for listening to stories in preschoolers with autism. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 27, 103-124.
Important milestones: Your child at two years. (2014, March 27). Retrieved April 27, 2015, from http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/actearly/milestones/milestones-2yr.html
Kodak, T., Paden, A., & Dickes, N., (2012). Training and generalization of peer-directed mandswith non-vocal children with autism. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 28, 119-124.
Marfo, K. (1988). Early intervention with developmentally delayed infants and preschool children in Newfoundland and Labrador. Washington, D.C.: ERIC Clearinghouse.
Ritsner, M. (Ed.). (2010). Brain Protection in Schizophrenia, Mood and Cognitive Disorders. Dordrecht: Springer.
REFERENCES (CONT.)
Skinner, B. F., (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Skinner, B. F., (1974). About behaviorism. New York, NY: Knopf.
Taylor, B. A., Hoch, H., Potter, B., Rodriguez, A., Spinnato, D., & Kalaigian, M., (2005). Manipulating establishing operations to promote initiations towards peers in children with autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26, 385-392.
Vaughan, M. E., & Michael, J., (1982). Automatic reinforcement: An important but ignored concept. Behaviorism, 10, 217–227.