A laboratory comparison of two variations of differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate procedures

We compared 2 variations of differential‐reinforcement‐of‐low‐rate (DRL) procedures: spaced‐responding DRL, in which a reinforcer was delivered contingent on each response if a specified interval had passed since the last response, and full‐session DRL, in which a reinforcer was presented at the end...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of applied behavior analysis Vol. 47; no. 2; pp. 314 - 324
Main Authors Jessel, Joshua, Borrero, John C.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2014
Subjects
Adolescent
Adult
Behavior
Behavior Patterns
Behavior Problems
Classroom Environment
Classrooms
College Students
Conditioning, Operant - physiology
differential reinforcement of low rates
differential reinforcement of other behavior
Earnings
Elementary Education
Elementary School Students
Elementary Schools
Feedback (Response)
Female
human operant
Humans
interresponse time
Item Response Theory
Laboratories
Male
Psychological Patterns
Reinforcement (Psychology)
Reinforcement Schedule
Reinforcement schedules
Schedules
Studies
Time Factors
translational research
Young Adult
differential reinforcement of low rates
interresponse time
translational research
differential reinforcement of other behavior
human operant
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:We compared 2 variations of differential‐reinforcement‐of‐low‐rate (DRL) procedures: spaced‐responding DRL, in which a reinforcer was delivered contingent on each response if a specified interval had passed since the last response, and full‐session DRL, in which a reinforcer was presented at the end of an interval if the response rate was below criterion within the specified interval. We used a human‐operant procedure and analyzed within‐session responding to assess any similarities or differences between procedures. Data revealed a positive contingency between responding and reinforcement under the spaced‐responding DRL schedule and a negative contingency under the full‐session DRL schedule. Furthermore, 60% of the participants discontinued responding by the last full‐session DRL session. Implications for the appropriate procedural and taxonomical usage of both DRL schedules are discussed.
Bibliography:ArticleID:JABA114
istex:69EE578A26BEEEE864E05568EBF1A34DE621CDA7
ark:/67375/WNG-23FTL51F-G
Eunice K. Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) - No. RO1HD049753
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0021-8855
1938-3703
DOI:10.1002/jaba.114