BA440 Unit 2 Differential Reinforcement Paper Example

Praise Did Not Compete With Escape: A BA440 Unit 2 Differential Reinforcement Paper

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

BA440: Behavior Intervention

Unit 2 Differential Reinforcement Paper

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The writer, the agency, the family and every figure are composite and illustrative; the articles and book cited are real.

Homework at the Kitchen Table

Jonah is eleven, has an intellectual disability and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and attends fifth grade in a Spokane public school. Twice a week, I work with him at his kitchen table from four to five, when his mother wants homework done before his father gets home from his shift at a distribution center. When a worksheet appears, Jonah often puts his head down, argues that the work is stupid or walks to the couch. His mother had tried taking away his tablet, which led to longer arguments.

My supervising behavior analyst's assessment found that refusal was maintained by escape: arguing or leaving usually ended homework for the evening. Our first plan, though, did not use that finding well.

Reinforcement and Differential Reinforcement

A consequence counts as reinforcement when the behavior it follows becomes more likely afterward. Positive reinforcement adds something, such as praise or a token; negative reinforcement removes something, such as a demand. Differential reinforcement combines reinforcement of one behavior with withholding reinforcement for another.

Vollmer and Iwata (1992) described the main procedural variations. In differential reinforcement of alternative behavior, an appropriate behavior that serves the same purpose is reinforced while the problem behavior is placed on extinction. In differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior, the reinforced behavior cannot occur at the same time as the problem behavior. In differential reinforcement of other behavior, reinforcement follows a period without the problem behavior. In differential reinforcement of low rates, reinforcement follows a reduced rate rather than none. They also emphasized a functional point: differential reinforcement works best when the reinforcer delivered for the alternative behavior is the same one that maintained the problem behavior, or at least competes with it.

The First Plan and Why It Failed

Our first plan reinforced working with praise and a sticker for each problem attempted, while homework continued after refusal. For three weeks, Jonah's mother and I praised every effort warmly. He attempted an average of four problems per session in baseline and four in the third week of the plan. Refusal episodes stayed near five per session.

We were paying Jonah in praise for giving up the one thing he wanted, which was to stop.

The plan reinforced an alternative behavior, but with the wrong reinforcer. Escape from homework was worth more to Jonah than praise or stickers, so working never competed with refusal. Vollmer and Iwata's functional point predicted this outcome.

The Revised Plan

The revised plan used differential reinforcement of alternative behavior with negative reinforcement. Each time Jonah completed three problems, he earned a two-minute break on the couch with his tablet, timed with a visual timer. Refusal no longer ended homework: if he put his head down or argued, his mother calmly pointed to the next problem and waited, and if he left, she brought the sheet to the couch. Praise continued, now paired with the breaks.

The alternative behavior, finishing a small set of problems, produced the reinforcer that refusal had produced, a break from work. Because the breaks were short and frequent, the total time spent on homework rose even though Jonah stopped more often.

Results

In the first week of the revised plan, Jonah completed an average of eleven problems per session and refusal fell to fewer than two episodes. By the third week, he completed fifteen problems per session and refusal averaged under one. His mother reported that homework evenings had become quieter and that his father now arrived to finished work.

What the Evidence Says

Petscher et al. (2009) reviewed the published research on differential reinforcement of alternative behavior. They concluded that it has strong empirical support as a treatment for problem behavior across many populations, settings and behaviors, and that it is most effective when combined with extinction for the problem behavior and when the reinforcer matches the function of the problem behavior. They also noted that results are weaker when problem behavior continues to be reinforced, as it was in our first plan whenever Jonah's arguing occasionally ended a session.

Our experience matched those conclusions. The first plan reinforced an alternative but left refusal partly reinforced and offered a reinforcer that did not compete. The revised plan corrected both problems.

Thinning the Schedule

Two-minute breaks after every three problems are not a long-term arrangement. Cooper et al. (2020) describe thinning reinforcement gradually so that behavior maintains under schedules closer to everyday life. Our plan increases the number of problems per break by one each week that refusal stays below one per session, with the goal of a five-minute break after each completed page. If refusal rises, the schedule returns to the previous step for a week.

Cultural and Family Factors

Jonah's mother values education highly; she left school at sixteen and wants him to finish. At first she worried that breaks would teach him that work is optional. We showed her the data from both plans side by side. Seeing that he did more work with breaks than without changed her mind, and she now sets the timer herself. Asking how a family understands a procedure, and showing them its effects, mattered as much as choosing the right one.

Measuring the Change

Both plans used the same measures, which made the comparison fair. Each session, I recorded problems completed, refusal episodes, defined as head down for ten seconds, arguing about the work or leaving the table, and total minutes spent working. His mother recorded the same measures on the two evenings I was not there, using a tally sheet on the refrigerator. Our counts agreed closely on the evenings we both recorded, which gave us confidence in her data.

Limits

The data come from one child in one setting with two adults. The revised plan also changed more than one thing at once, adding breaks and stopping escape after refusal, so we cannot say which change mattered more. My supervisor plans to probe this by briefly returning to praise alone with refusal still on extinction, if the family agrees.

Conclusion

Praise and stickers for working did not compete with escape, and Jonah's homework refusal held steady for three weeks. A revised plan based on Vollmer and Iwata's functional account delivered breaks for completing problems while refusal no longer ended homework, and refusal fell sharply. Petscher and colleagues' review supports this combination, and a planned thinning schedule aims to make the change last.

References

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson.

Petscher, E. S., Rey, C., & Bailey, J. S. (2009). A review of empirical support for differential reinforcement of alternative behavior. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30(3), 409-425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2008.08.008

Vollmer, T. R., & Iwata, B. A. (1992). Differential reinforcement as treatment for behavior disorders: Procedural and functional variations. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 13(4), 393-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/0891-4222(92)90013-V