Learning To Blog & Blogging To Learn

Blog With Me?

Month: April, 2012

The two previous articles suggest that a reward system through differential reinforcement of the other behavior (DRO) may produce better results than do a punishment system.  This hypothesis has not been proven (although in science, nothing is ever “proven,” only supported), and for every argument, it is important to present the other side.  The article by Conyers et al. presents an experiment which produces results that support omission training as a better means than DRO.

Conyers et al. compares two procedures aimed to reduce the disruptive behavior in a preschool class.  In the Response-Cost procedure, children start off with 15 tokens and are told that a token would be taken away if any disruptive behavior is exhibited.  In the DRO procedure, children start off with no tokens and are told that they would receive a token if they do not engage in any disruptive behavior.  For both procedures, the children receive a candy reward as long as they have at least 12 tokens at the end of each trial.

At baseline, disruptive behavior occurred with a mean of 64%.  The Response-Cost procedure decreased this mean to 5% while the DRO procedure decreased this mean to 27%.  Conyers et al. therefore find “response cost more effective than DRO” (Conyers et al. 413).  The prompting of a punishment is now seen as more successful in diminishing disruptive children in children than is the reward of the other behavior.  This opposes the findings from the other two previous articles which illustrates that there are no set rules for learning.  One method will not necessarily prove more effective than another across the board or in all types of situations.  In learning, there are no such things as golden rules.  Each circumstance is unique and therefore requires a type of learning tweaked to its own conditions.

Wahler et al. provide us a second article which further demonstrates the complexities of learning.  The three previous articles focus on and involve the direct manipulation of the child’s behavior.  Wahler et al., however, go beyond the centralization on the child and recognize the behavior of a parent, specifically that of the mother, as a “powerful class of reinforcers for her child’s deviant as well as normal behavior” (Wahler, 113).  They propose the use of the DRO technique on the child through the mother or primary care taker of that child.  In other words, they aim to produce specific changes in the behavior of the mothers as a means to indirectly improve the behavior of her child.

Wahler et al. state that since the parents’ “behaviors serve a large variety of stimulus functions” and “compose the most influential part of [the child’s] natural environment,” the parents become the “source of eliciting stimuli and reinforcers which [produce] and [maintain] the child’s behavior” (Wahler, 114).  It thus becomes logical that to modify the child’s deviant behavior, a change in parental behaviors must be involved.  More specifically, Wahler et al. highlights the importance of “eliminating the contingencies which currently support their child’s deviant behavior, and [providing] new contingencies to produce and maintain more normal behaviors which compete with the deviant behavior” (Wahler, 114).

—————– UPDATE (begin) —————–

In the three cases studied, the baseline of the mothers differs based on the type of deviant behavior their child expresses.

Case 1) Danny is an extremely demanding child who virtually determines his own bedtime, foods he eats, when his parents play with him, and other household activities.  Danny’s mother initially is “unable to refuse his demands and rarely attempts to ignore or punish him.  On the few occasions when she refused him, she quickly relented when he began to shout or cry” (Wahler, 117).

Case 2) Johnny is a very dependent child who is physically abusive to others when he receives no attention.  Johnny’s mother initially is very responsive to this type of dependency and she feels more comfortable when he is at her side or at least within site.  Before the study, she encourages this type of “dependence on others for direction and support” (Wahler, 119).

Case 3) Eddie exudes extreme stubbornness, ignoring his mothers commands and requests or doing the opposite of what he is told or asked to do. Initially, all of Eddie’s mother’s interactions with him is restricted to his oppositional behavior such that she “rarely plays games with him, reads to him, or talks to him” (Wahler, 121).

In these three cases, we see how each mother’s baseline behavior differs.  Danny’s mother rewards Danny’s deviant behavior by relenting after he throws tantrums.  She rewards his demands by allowing him to do so.  Johnny’s mother rewards Johnny’s unhealthy dependent behavior by giving him the attention desired when he expresses his dependency.  Eddie’s mother rewards Eddie’s stubbornness by giving him attention only during the times he behaves in a negative way.  Other than during those times, she does not acknowledge him, a form of punishment.

—————– UPDATE (end) —————–

To ultimately improve the behavior of these three children, the experimenters first teach the mothers to recognize the child’s deviant behavior.  Then, because the aim is to eliminate reinforcers produced by the mother, the experimenters instruct the mother to ignore any deviant behaviors and respond to any cooperative or socially desired behavior.  More specifically, the mother is required to make no verbal or non-verbal contact with her child and ostensibly read a book if the child exhibits the deviant behavior.  This is to positively reinforce the desired behavior and punish the negative behavior.  In an experimental setting, the mothers are informed of a correct response to her child’s behavior via a light as a cueing signal which is controlled by experimenters in another room.  Because the “response rates of the children’s deviant and incompatible behavior [are] weakened when their mothers’ contingent behavior [is] eliminated, and strengthened when they [are] replaced,” Wahler et al. find that their data “supports the contention that [the mother’s] behavior changes are responsible for the changes” in the child’s behavior (Wahler, 123).  The children’s behavior is under the control of the mother’s behavior.

This article parallels the saying, “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.  Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.”  Most programs focus on the direct manipulation of the actions of the child.  They are able to change the child’s behavior in a specific experimental setting however, once placed back in real world situations, the environmental cues and stimulants differ drastically which cause the child to exhibit little improvement in their behavior.  In this approach, the problem is the child.  In the approach discussed above, the problem is not the child but the environment in which the behavior is exhibited.  By changing the conditions and responses, improvements in child behavior can be extrapolated and transferred to varying situations.  Changing the child is like giving the man a fish.  Just the immediate problem is solved.  The child learns good behavior in a specific context but cannot maintain such conduct.  Changing the parent’s behavior to the child’s behavior is like teaching a man to fish.  Now, the man can obtain fish whenever he wants, from whichever sea, during any time of the day.  Likewise, the child’s behavior can be manipulated in multiple and diverse situations.

This all leads me to speculate that the importance of learning, therefore, lies not only in the individual, but in everything that influences the individual as well.  Successful behavioral improvement procedures must take into account the whole picture.  Learning is not an isolated entity; it is neither straightforward nor simple.  Instead, learning is complex, multifaceted, and involves many intricacies that must be acknowledged.

Conyers, C., Miltenberger, R., Maki, A., Barenz, R., Jurgens, M., Sailer, A., Haugen, M., & Kopp, B. (2004). A comparison of response cost and differential reinforcement of other behavior to reduce disruptive behavior in a preschool classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37(3), 411-415.

Wahler, R., Winkel, G., Peterson, R., & Morrison, D. (1965). Mothers as behavior therapists for their own children. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 3(2), 113-124.

Advertisements

Hello World!

As a newbie to the world of blogging, I find that I must first learn how to communicate to you in this foreign yet exciting technological form of discourse.  The concept of learning, however, is something quite familiar to not only me, but to almost all individuals.  Learning is what allows an individual to survive, what allows a species to continue.  Learning comes in many different shapes, sizes and forms, and influences our lives from the very day we are born.  The topic of my ensuing posts will revolve around one specific type of learning: instrumental conditioning.  Furthermore, I focus on the effects of instrumental conditioning on child rearing.

Instrumental behavior, the end product of instrumental learning, is set apart from the effects of habituation, sensitization, and classical conditioning in the fact that it is goal-directed.  This means that the behavior “occurs because it was previously instrumental in producing certain consequences” (Domjan 144).  In instrumental learning, the entity being learned is the “association between the response and the stimuli present at the time of the response” (Domjan 146).  Instrumental learning procedures fall under two criterion with two levels each, whether the response-outcome contingency is positive or negative and if the procedure increases or decreases a specific response rate.  Table 5.1 illustrates the properties of the four instrumental conditioning procedures.

Two articles, one by Weiher and Harman and the other by Azrin, Sneed, and Foxx, analyze the effects of instrumental conditioning procedures on children behavior.

Let’s start with Azrin, Sneed, and Foxx.  Their study on enuretic children, children who lacked the ability to control their urination, was prompted by the limitations of the urine-alarm technique.  The Urine-Alarm technique utilizes a loud buzzing sound upon urination detected by a bed pad.  However, this procedure requires weeks, even months, to reduce urination in bed and also has a high relapse rate.  Azrin et al. thus propose the Dry-Bed procedure where, when an accident occurs, the individual “receives verbal disapproval, [is] required to change the bed sheets, and [is] required to practice arising from the bed to walk to the toilet” (Azrin et al. 147).  At the bathroom, the child is also asked if he or she can inhibit urination for another hour.  If the child responds with a yes and does so successfully, praise is administered.  If the child responds with a no, he or she is persuaded to inhibit urination for a few minutes, and if done successfully, praise is administered and the child is allowed to urinate.  The child again receives praise for correct toileting after urination.  At all times after correct urination, the child is praised for having kept his sheets dry upon arriving at his bed and feeling his sheets.  The next day, praise is administered again and is continued during multiple times throughout the entire day.  Azrin et at. find that this Dry-Bed technique is much quicker in eliminating enuresis and long lasting than the Urine-Alarm technique.

My question is why is the Dry-Bed technique more immediate and effective than the Urine-Alarm technique?  Although these issues are not discussed in the article itself, I hypothesize that this is due to the fact that the Urine-Alarm technique implements punishment, while the Dry-Bed technique implements punishment but more so positive reinforcement.  The Dry-Bed technique does punish the individual by disturbing sleep, forcing him or her to change their bed and walk to the bathroom, however, it focuses mainly on the praise upon control of urination.  Is there something about positive reinforcement that makes a technique better than one utilizing punishment?  To try and figure out what is going on, the second article by Weiher and Harman must be discussed.

Weiher’s and Harman’s studies arise from the problem of self-injurious behavior (SIB) in the retarded child.  Like the Urine-Alarm technique, the limitations of a less effective technique for SIB prompted their investigation.  Employment of an aversive stimulus via a mild electric shock initially reduces the amount of SIB.  However, when the shock is no longer administered, SIB returns.  In addition, the suppression of SIB is only successful in selective environments and in the presence of specific therapists.  Therefore, Weiher and Harman approached the problem a different way.  They utilize omission training where if the child engages in SIB, the therapist withholds a reward, in this case, half a teaspoon of applesauce.  When the child retains from exhibiting SIB for a certain amount of time, he or she is given the desired applesauce.  The time required to withhold from SIB is then increased and the same procedure is followed until SIB is eliminated.  This technique proves to be just as rapid as the electric shock technique, however, it produces a greater durability in the sense that it is long lasting and applies to a broad range of environments.

Just as the Azrin et al. study found, a positive reinforcement technique proved to be more successful in the elimination of an unwanted behavior.  Weiher and Harman’s study may hold the answer.  It is important to note that SIB is a “learned, operant, or instrumental social behavior” where the “strength of which bears a functional relationship to the presentation and withdrawal of social reinforcement” (Weiher and Harman 262).  Therefore, the child is using the behavior as a means to produce a certain outcome.  If another behavior can replace this to produce an even more desirable outcome, then the initial behavior can be reduced, maybe even eliminated.  The “other responding, which actively [competes] with resumption of the response under focus of response elimination, [is] maintained by omission reinforcement” and thus becomes the predominant behavior.  The reinforcement by the apple sauce of the other behavior, which is lack of SIB, allows the SIB behavior to be surpressed.  The subject learns “not to emit SIB and to emit other, more appropriate behaviors as a means of gaining attention” via this positive reinforcement (Weiher and Harman 267). Both articles then exhibit the effects of Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior (DRO), which may explain the efficiency and durability of the Dry-Bed technique and the Apple-Sauce technique.  These instrumental conditioning procedures involve a positive reinforcer, the praise or the apple sauce, when the individual exhibits the opposite other behavior, the lack of bed-wetting or lack of SIB behavior.  This other behavior then seems to replace the opposite undesired behavior which is why these techniques are so successful.

——————————————- Update ——————————————-

It should be mentioned that we cannot directly conclude that the reinforcement procedure is solely responsible for the success of the procedures discussed.  For example, the Dy-Bed technique not only involves the reinforcement of the other behavior, but also differs on the level of punishment utilized when compared to the Buzzer-technique.  For the Buzzer-technique, the child is merely woken by the buzzer whenever he or she urinates in bed.  Immediately after, the child may fall back to sleep with little to no disturbance.  For the Dry-Bed technique, the child is woken up by an actual person, is forced to take off the dirty sheets and replace them with clean sheets, and is taken to the bathroom where they must stay until correct urination is performed.  The child cannot go back to sleep as he or she must perform these actions, which the parent or experimentor makes sure of.  It is arguable that being woken up briefly is less intense than being woken up and forced to function in such a manner.  Therefore, two variables may be responsible for the greater success of the Dry-Bed technique.  To distinguish which variable elicits this increase in efficiency, future research can be conducted such that the praise element is eliminated.  If the child still shows a greater response to the Dry-Bed technique, then that data may support the hypothesis that the increase in success of the technique is due to the greater intensity of punishment.  Researchers can also alter the Dry-Bed technique so that the child is awaken by the buzzer only (identical to the Buzzer-technique), but the praise is still administered when correct inhibition of urination is performed.  If the child still shows a greater response to the Dry-Bed technique, then that data may support the hypothesis that the increase in success of the technique is due to the DRO reinforcement aspect.

 

 

 

 

References:

Azrin, N. H., Sneed, T. J., & Foxx, R. M. (1974). Dry-bed training: rapid elimination of childhood enuresis. Behavior Research Therapy, 12(3), 147-156.

Domjan, M. (2006). Principles of learning and behavior. Belmon, CA: Wadsworth.

Weiher, R. G., & Harman, R. E. (1975). The use of omission training to reduce self-injurious behavior in a retarded child. Behavior Therapy, 6(2), 261-268.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. After you read this, you should delete and write your own post, with a new title above. Or hit Add New on the left (of the admin dashboard) to start a fresh post.

Here are some suggestions for your first post.

  1. You can find new ideas for what to blog about by reading the Daily Post.
  2. Add PressThis to your browser. It creates a new blog post for you about any interesting  page you read on the web.
  3. Make some changes to this page, and then hit preview on the right. You can always preview any post or edit it before you share it to the world.