Literature DB >> 15529886

Effects of modeling versus instructions on sensitivity to reinforcement schedules.

Nancy A Neef1, Julie Marckel, Summer Ferreri, Sunhwa Jung, Lindsay Nist, Nancy Armstrong.   

Abstract

This study examined the effects of modeling versus instructions on the choices of 3 typically developing children and 3 children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) whose academic responding showed insensitivity to reinforcement schedules. During baseline, students chose between successively presented pairs of mathematics problems associated with different variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. After responding proved insensitive to the schedules, sessions were preceded by either instructions or modeling, counterbalanced across students in a multiple baseline design across subjects. During the instruction condition, students were told how to distribute responding to earn the most reinforcers. During the modeling condition, students observed the experimenter performing the task while describing her distribution of responding to obtain the most reinforcers. Once responding approximated obtained reinforcement under either condition, the schedules of reinforcement were changed, and neither instruction nor modeling was provided. Both instruction and modeling interventions quickly produced patterns of response allocation that approximated obtained rates of reinforcement, but responding established with modeling was more sensitive to subsequent changes in the reinforcement schedules than responding established with instructions. Results were similar for students with and without ADHD.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15529886      PMCID: PMC1284504          DOI: 10.1901/jaba.2004.37-267

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal        ISSN: 0021-8855


  17 in total

1.  Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement.

Authors:  R J HERRNSTEIN
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1961-07       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  Effects of reinforcer rate and reinforcer quality on time allocation: Extensions of matching theory to educational settings.

Authors:  N A Neef
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1992

3.  Saying and doing: A contingency-space analysis.

Authors:  B A Matthews; E Shimoff; A C Catania
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1987

4.  On two types of deviation from the matching law: bias and undermatching.

Authors:  W M Baum
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1974-07       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  Effects of response variability on the sensitivity of rule-governed behavior.

Authors:  J H Joyce; P N Chase
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Correlation between self-reported rigidity and rule-governed insensitivity to operant contingencies.

Authors:  E Wulfert
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1994

7.  Transient effects of acquisition history on generalization in a matching-to-sample task.

Authors:  R L Michael; D J Bernstein
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 2.468

8.  Peer modeling of response chains: observational learning by students with disabilities.

Authors:  M G Werts; N K Caldwell; M Wolery
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1996

Review 9.  Basic and applied research on choice responding.

Authors:  W W Fisher; J E Mazur
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1997

10.  Determinants of human performance on concurrent schedules.

Authors:  P J Horne; C F Lowe
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 2.468

View more
  2 in total

1.  Generating variable and random schedules of reinforcement using Microsoft Excel macros.

Authors:  Stacie L Bancroft; Jason C Bourret
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2008

Review 2.  Single-case experimental designs: a systematic review of published research and current standards.

Authors:  Justin D Smith
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2012-07-30
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.