- Email: [email protected]
The use of response deprivation to increase the academic performance of EMR students
.4pplied Research m Menrol Rerordrrrion. Primed in the USA. All rights reserved.
Vol. 6. pp. 15-31. 1985 Copyrighl
0270.3092/85 c 1985 Pergamon
$3.00+ .OQ Press Ltd.
The Use of Response Deprivation to Increase the Academic Performance of EMR Students Edward
A. Konarski,
The University Charles
R. Crowell
Jr.
of Alabama
and Leo M. Duggan
University of Notre
Dame
This research was designed to evaluate the proposed advantages of responsedeprivation OSthe basisfor establishing reinforcement schedules in applied settings. In Experiment I, response deprivation was used to improve the cursive writing of six EMR children, using math as the contingent response. The resultssuggestedthat writing improved in schedules that produced response deprivation and when the children were given corrective feedback on their performances, In Experiment 2, reversibility of reinforcement was investigated in four EMR children working on math and writing tasks. The students weresequentially presented two reinforcement schedulesthat produced responsedeprivation; however, the instrumental and contingent responses were reversedfrom the first to the second. Consistent with the responsedeprivation view, the results indicated an increasein instrumental responding in both schedules, which suggests that reversibility of reinforcement can be achieved simply by changes in schedule requirements. In summary, the results of both experiments offered support for responsedeprivation as an alternative method of producing reinforcement in educational settings.
Bateman (1975) demonstrated the use of the Premack Principle to modify the occupational performance of mentally retarded persons. This principle states that effective reinforcers are contingent responseswith a higher freeoperant probability of occurrence relative to the instrumental response (Premack, 1965). Although some recent research supports this approach (Allen Address reprint requests to: Edward A. Konarski, Jr., Department of Psychology, Box 2968, The University of Alabama, University, Alabama 35486. I5
16
E. A. Konarski, Jr., C. R. Crowell, and L. M. Duggan
& Iwata, 1980), other research with first-grade (Konarski, Johnson, Crowell, & Whitman, 1980)and mentally retarded students (Konarski, Crowell, Johnson, &Whitman, 1982)has suggestedthat the responsedeprivation hypothesis (Timberlake & Allison, 1974) is a better predictor of effective reinforcement schedules. The condition of response deprivation exists in a schedule when the programmed schedule requirements deprive the person of baseline accessto the contingent response if instrumental responding is maintained at its baseline level. That is, in order to regain his or her baseline level of the contingent response, a person has to increase instrumental responding over its baseline level in the schedule (thus creating the reinforcement effect). A specific baseline probability differential between responses is therefore not required to predict effective reinforcement schedules. Operationally, response deprivation exists if I/C>O,/Oc where I and C are the schedule requirements for the instrumental and contingent responses,respectively, while Oi and 0, represent their respective paired-operant levels. For example, a mentally retarded student has a baseline level of 20 minutes of coloring and 10 minutes of listening to music. The Premack Principle would predict that coloring could be used to reinforce music because it has the higher probability of occurrence, but listening to music could never serve as a reinforcer for coloring. However, the response deprivation hypothesis would predict that either response could reinforce the other if the schedule requirements produce responsedeprivation. Examples of effective reinforcement schedules would be 10 minutes of music earning 10 minutes of coloring (10/10>20/10) and 10 minutes of coloring earning 2 minutes of listening to music (10/2> 10/20). Note that the response deprivation hypothesis predicts that coloring, even though it is the higher probability behavior, would fail to reinforce listening to music if the schedule requirements did not produce response deprivation (e.g., 5 minutes of music earning 10 minutes of coloring, or 5/10= 10/20). Konarski, Johnson, Crowell, and Whitman (1981) suggestedthat response deprivation might provide behavior modifiers with an alternative to traditional approaches to reinforcement used in treatment settings (e.g., Empirical Law of Effect; Premack Principle). Furthermore, these authors argued that an approach based on the response deprivation hypothesis (Timberlake 8~Allison, 1974)would offer several educational advantages. These included an increase in the quantity of potential reinforcers, an improvement in the quality of reinforcers, the provision for reversibility of reinforcement effects through schedule changes, and the opportunity for assessmentof behavior, using the most convenient and academically relevant response measures. To date, research has yet to provide support for these proposed advantages. Furthermore, given the difficulty of establishing effective reinforcement schedules with the mentally retarded (Whitman & Scibak, 1979), there is a need for research investigating the applied utility of this hypothesis.
ResponseDeprivation
17
The present research was designed to demonstrate the utility of response deprivation with the mentally retarded and to evaluate some of the proposed advantages of this approach for establishing reinforcement schedulesin academic settings. The first experiment used response deprivation as the basis for improving the cursive writing of EMR children. In the second experiment, reversibility of reinforcement by schedule changes alone was examined.
EXPERIMENT
1
Positive reinforcement has been shown effective for improving the quality of students’ handwriting (e.g., Hopkins, Schutte, & Garton, 1971; Trap, Mimer-Davis, Joseph, & Cooper, 1978). The purpose of this experiment was to employ response deprivation as the basis for a reinforcement program designedto improve the cursive writing of six EMR students. To assessthe advantage of this approach that any response can serve as a reinforcer for any other, math was selected a priori as the contingent response. The selection of this educationally important behavior also indicates the potential for improvement in the quality of reinforcers for applied use. Finally, because between-responsecomparisons such as those required by Premack’s approach (e.g., Premack, 1965) are unnecessary, a different response measure was employed for each behavior.
METHOD
Participants and Setting Six male students from a public school EMR classroom participated. They ranged in age from 7 to 11 years old and were labeled EMR basedon academic performance and standard intelligence tests. They were members of a work group devised by the teacher for purposes of small-group interaction. None of the children presented any unusual behavior problems. The experiment was conducted in the children’s regular classroom. The participants sat at their normal desks, which were loosely arranged into a semicircle. The experimenter was responsible for the children when the study was in progress, while the teacher interacted with the remaining students in the class. Dependent Variables and Recording The percentage of words written correctly and the number of math problems attempted were the dependent variables. A percentage measure was used for writing, because it appeared to best reflect the students’ ability on this
18
E. A. Konarski, Jr., C. R. Crowell, and L. M. Duggan
task. Five of the children were asked to write at least 25 words a day, whereas one (Michael) was asked to attempt 27. This was done to ensure that the students engaged in the minimal amount of instrumental response needed to get a reliable assessmentof writing ability. The percentage measure was calculated by dividing the number of words written correctly by 25 (27 for Michael) and multiplying by 100. A correctly written word had to contain all of the components of the model word (e.g., curves, crosses,dots, letters in correct order, uppercaseand lowercase letters) and had to be written within the ruled lines of the paper, and no one component of a word could deviate from the model word by more than 4 mm as measured by a template. An attempted math problem was any math problem for which the child entered an answer in the appropriate place. The math and writing tasks were taken from a variety of sources supplied by the teacher. The degree of difficulty of both kinds of tasks remained constant throughout the study, but the exact stimulus materials varied from day to day. Reliability of Recording The experimenter (the principal investigator) scored each child’s daily work sheets. Reliability was assesseddaily by having an undergraduate psychology student restore all of the children’s work sheets after the session. Reliability on writing behavior was calculated by dividing the number of words each person scored as correctly written (A) by this score plus the number of words either observer alone scored as correct (D). This total (A/A + D) was multiplied by 100 to obtain a percentage-of-agreement score. Agreement on incorrectly written words was obtained with the same formula. The same method was used to calculate reliability on the number of math problems attempted. The results averaged across all children were 88% agreement for percentage of words written correctly (range = 50% to 100%) and 98% for incorrectly written words (range = 90% to 100%). The extreme range of agreement for correctly written words was due to the low frequency of occurrence of this behavior during the early phases of the study. That was why scores were calculated on both correctly and incorrectly written words. For the number of math problems attempted, the mean agreement score was 99% (range = 94% to 100%). Procedures The study was conducted for 40 minutes Monday through Friday, beginning at approximately I:00 p.m. When the children were seated and quiet, the experimenter put the work materials in front of each child and read the instructions.
ResponseDeprivation
I9
Baseline. During baseline the following instructions were used: Hi fellas. On the table in front of you are two piles, oneof math and one of writing. You can work on whicheverone you wish, the math or the writing, it’s up to you. Do whateveryou want. However, you should try to finish all of the writing work. The only rules are that you stay in your seat, you must not talk to me or to each other. Work quietly and on only onetask at a time. We will be working for 40 minutes (here the experimenter would point to a number on the clock and tell the children that it was over when the big hand reachedit). If you have any questionsraiseyour hand and I will answerthem. Does everyoneunderstandthe instructions? Then begin.
In short, both tasks were simultaneously and freely available to the children. If any of the children stopped working for more than 2 minutes, the experimenter would prompt them to please continue working. At the end of the session, the experimenter told the children to stop and collected all the materials. Feedback and corrective feedback. The purpose of these phases was to control for the increased feedback that would necessarily occur once a reinforcement schedulewas implemented. The feedback and corrective feedback phases were initiated similarly to baseline; however, during the session, the experimenter checked each child’s writing behavior three times, using the template as a guide. In the feedback phase, the experimenter simply told the child which words were written incorrectly and placed check marks beside them. In the corrective feedback phase, the children were also told why a word was scored as incorrect and how to correct that mistake. Schedules.Responsedeprivation-present (RD) and responsedeprivation-absent (RD) schedules were conducted in an identical fashion. Only the writing materials (the instrumental response) were placed on the children’s desks to start, and then the instructions were read. Today we have new rules. You have one pile of materials in front of you. In order for you to get your math you must do your writing first. You must stay in your seat, you must not talk to me or to each other. Please work quietly. We will be working for 40 minutes (indicating the time in the same manner as before). If you have questions, raise your hand and I will answer them. Does everyone understand the instructions? Then begin.
The instrumental response requirement (I) was conveyed to the children individually in terms of the number of words they would have to write correctly to gain accessto math. The experimenter continued to check each child’s writing three times per session and give corrective feedback. In both the RD and RD schedules the contingent requirement was made equal to the children’s average number of math problems attempted in the
20
E. A. Konarski, Jr., C. R. Crowell, and L. hf. Duggan
final six sessions of the immediately preceding corrective feedback phase (C = 0,). In the RD schedules, the instrumental requirement was larger than the average percentage of words written correctly in the corrective feedback phase (I > O,), thereby fulfilling the inequality, I/C > Oi/Oc. The exact values of I were chosen in conjunction with the teacher, so that they would be a realistically obtainable goal for the child yet would produce a significant increasein performance if met. In the RD schedules, the children’s writing requirement was equal to or lessthan their percentageof correctly written words in the preceding corrective feedback phase (I SO,), resulting in the situation I/C < O,/O(. The exact schedule requirements are presented in Table 1. Noncontingent contra/. In this phase, only the contingent responsematerials were on the children’s desks at the start of the session. Each child was presented with his contingent allotment of math (C) and, after completing it, was presentedwith the instrumental responsematerials (writing). This ensured that the children had accessto the contingent responseas in the RD schedules but without a contingent relationship between the responses. Design
The conditions of this study were sequentially applied until the entire treatment package (corrective feedback plus reinforcement contingency) was in effect. For four of the children, a noncontingent control was implemented, and the contingency was then reinstituted. The order of conditions for Pete, Michael, and Brad was baseline, corrective feedback, RD, control, and RD. The planned order of phases for Greg, Samuel, and Tim was baseline, feedback, corrective feedback, RD, RD, control, and RD. However, due to ex-
TABLE Schedule Reauirements
1. for Exoeriment
Corrective Feedback Writing/Math o,/oc Brad Pete Michael
Greg Samuel Tim
32%/104 23%/29 17%/28
1 RD Writing/Math I/C
Control Math C
68%/104 48%/29 33%/28
104 29 28
Corrective Feedback Writing/Math O./O.
RD Writing/Math 1/C
RD Writing/Math I/C
11To/38 8%/140 6%/41
8%/38 8%/140 4%/41
44%/38 48%/140 48%/41
Control Math C 38 -
Response Deprivation
21
cessive absences, Samuel and Tim were unable to complete their final two planned stages.The feedback phase was a control for the corrective feedback phaseto assessthe effects of merely knowing which words were correctly and incorrectly written. The RD phase was a control for the RD phase to assess the effects of presenting math in a contingent fashion in the absence of response deprivation to determine the necessity of this variable for producing reinforcement. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figures 1 and 2 depict the children’s cursive writing (instrumental responding) across all phases of the study. The data of Greg, Samuel, and Tim indicated little or no increase of behavior during the feedback phase. Similarly, only two of the six children (Greg and Michael) showed a slight increase of behavior in the corrective feedback phase suggesting that these variables alone were insufficient for significantly improving cursive writing. This finding is in slight contrast with that of Trap et al. (1978) who found more uniform, albeit small, improvement in writing due to corrective feedback. However, the combination of corrective feedback and the RD contingency resulted in significant increases in the percentage of words written correctly for all of the children. This finding fully replicates that of Trap et al. (1978) who found feedback plus reinforcement maximally effective. In contrast, responding in the RD condition indicated that the addition of a contingency which continued corrective feedback but lacked responsedeprivation had no positive effect on writing. This condition controlled for the possibility that the contingent presentation of math by itself might produce the reinforcement effect. Because it did not, response deprivation was supported as a necessary component of effective reinforcement schedules. The data across the RD and RD schedules is consistent with that of earlier applied research (Konarski et al., 1980, 1982) in support of response deprivation. The control condition had varying effects on the children’s writing behavior. Only Michael’s behavior showed a clear reversal in writing accuracy. Brad’s behavior showed a strong decelerating trend in the control condition but due to two overlapping points in the final RD phase his results were not conclusive. For Greg, the control phase produced an interruption in a strong accelerating trend which was continued in the reinstatement of the RD phase. However, the overlap of points across the three phases again weakens the data. Finally, no reversal was apparent in Pete’s instrumental responding. These differential results across children were consistent with earlier findings (Konarski et al., 1980) and prohibit firm conclusions concerning the necessity of a contingent relationship between the responsesto produce reinforcement. Finally, this study appears to have demonstrated that the responsedeprivation approach can be used as the basis of a reinforcement program to im-
22
E. A. Konarski,
3RFID
Ccl9R FBCK
BL
0
?
Jr., C. R. Crowell, and L. M. Duggan
c
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
34
4Z
45
9
12
,5
IV
2,
24
27
30
33
36
39
4L
45
9
L2
L:,
re
2,
L4
2-I
PO
z:
3G
39
IL
45
SESSIONS
FIGURE 1. Daily writing behavior of Brad, Michael, and Pete across Baseline (BL), Corrective Feedback (Corr Fbck), Response Deprivation Present (RD). and Control (Cant) phases.
-. % -
0 10
20
30
4c
50
60
PERCENT 70
80
90
z’w
--1--
100
kc
0
CORRECT 10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
CD3 rl-n
100
0
0
24
E. A. Konarski,
Jr., C. R. Crowell, and L. M. Duggan
prove the academic behavior of mentally retarded children. Furthermore, the advantagesof increasing the quantity and improving the quality of reinforcers were made obvious by the a priori selection of math as the contingent response. The flexibility of measurement offered by this approach, due to the fact that a between-response comparison is unnecessary, was also shown. EXPERIMENT
2
The purpose of this experiment was to investigate reversibility of reinforcement using two educationally relevant responses (math and writing). Reinforcement reversibility refers to the possibility that a given response could serve to reinforce a second behavior at one time and could itself be reinforced by that same behavior at another. A finding of this nature would have obvious educational relevance because,given two academic behaviors, it would be of value to be able to select the instrumental and contingent responses according to the educational needs of a student at a particular time. According to the response deprivation hypothesis, reversibility of reinforcement should occur on the basis of schedule changes alone. That is, response A could serve to reinforce response B, so long as the schedule requirements produced response deprivation (i.e., B/A > O,,/OJ, whereas B could reinforce A at another time, given appropriate schedule requirements (i.e., A/B>O,/O,). In contrast, a competing hypothesis, the Premack Principle, suggeststhat reversibility should occur only when the probability differential between the responsesis altered (Premack, 1965, 1971). Therefore, response A should serve to reinforce response B only if it has a relatively higher probability of occurrence at that time. Later, B could reinforce A only if B then had the relatively higher probability of occurrence. Consistent with recent laboratory research findings (Timberlake & Wozny, 1979), it was hypothesized in the present study that changes in schedule requirements alone would be sufficient to produce reversibility of reinforcement effects. METHOD
Participants and Setting Four male children attending a public school classroom for EMR students participated (Billy, Greg, Michael, and Samuel). Three of these students were participants in Experiment 1. The new student (Billy) could be described similarly to those children. The study was conducted in the children’s regular classroom, at a large table to the side of the class. When the study was in progress the teacher interacted with the other children in the classroom, while the experimenter was again responsible for the participants.
Response Deprivation Dependent
25
Variables and Recording
The number of math problems attempted and the number of correctly written words were the dependent variables and were defined as in Experiment 1. However, the number of correctly written words was not converted to a percentage measure in this study because, although it was desired, improvement in the quality of writing was not the particular goal of this experiment. The experimenter (an undergraduate psychology student) scored each child’s daily work sheets. With the assistance of an independent observer, reliability on the experimenter’s scoring was assessed10 times per child, with at least two checks per experimental condition. Reliability of recording was calculated according to the formula used in Experiment 1 (A/A + D x 100). The average results across all assessmentswere a mean agreement score of 85% for correct words (range = 33% to 100%) and 97% for incorrectly written words (range = 92% to 100%). As in Experiment 1, the low frequency of correctly written words produced a wide range of agreement scores.For number of math problems attempted, the mean agreementscore was 98% (range = 93% to 100%). Design
A reversal design was employed. All children were first presented with a paired-operant baseline where both responseswere freely available. In the first schedule phase, the apparent higher probability behavior served as the contingent responsein the reinforcement schedulesfor Greg and Samuel, whereas Michael and Billy were presented with schedules where the apparent lower probability behavior served as the contingent response. After a return to baseline, the children were presented with a second schedule; however, in this casethe designated contingent and instrumental responseswere reversed for each child. Both schedules for the children produced response deprivation. Procedures
The study was conducted for 40 minutes daily, Monday through Friday, immediately after the children’s lunch-recessbreak. The children were usually seated at the table when the experimenter arrived in the classroom. If they were not, they immediately came to the table when the experimenter walked in. The procedures and instructions during baseline were the same as in Experiment 1, except that the instruction to attempt a certain amount of writing was omitted, because a minimum number of words to judge writing quality was unnecessary. On the days when a schedule was in effect, everything was the same except that only one pile of materials (the instrumental responsematerials) was placed in front of each child. The instructions were similar to those of Ex-
26
E. A. Konarski, Jr., C. R. Crowell. and L. M. Duggan
periment 1. The experimenter checked each child’s work three times per session to seeif he had completed the task. If he had, he was given the contingent materials and was told that he could work on either subject for the remainder of the period. Although such a choice was essentially the sameas that offered in baseline, it was noted that, for the most part, children tended to work on their contingent response during this period. The schedule requirements were established so that I/C > Oi/Oc was true. This task was accomplished once again by making C = 0, and I > Oi. These values are presented in Table 2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 3 displays the baseline levels of math and writing and the levels of instrumental responding during the schedulesfor Greg and Samuel. This same information is depicted in Figure 4 for Michael and Billy. Each point represents the average of two days of data, except where noted. Because the children always completed their baseline amount of the contingent response during the schedules, graphic representation of these data was omitted, so that the increasesof instrumental responding could be more clearly observed. Although the baseline data proved somewhat variable, the figures indicate increasesof instrumental responding over baseline levels for all of the children in both scheduleconditions. Additionally, only Billy’s data indicates a reversal of probability differential from the first to the second baseline. These findings replicate those of Timberlake and Wozny (1979), who demonstrated with rats that reversibility of reinforcement effects could be produced by schedule changes alone, and fully support the predictions of the response deprivation hypothesis. These results do not appear compatible with the postulation that there needsto be a reversal of response probabilities to produce reversibility of reinforcement (Premack, 1965, 197l), becauseonly Billy showed an apparent reversal of baseline probabilities. The results of this study offer empirical support for the suggestion of
Instrumental
Samuel Greg Michael Billy
Schedule
TABLE 2. Requirements
for Experiment
2
Baseline Oi
RD 1
Baseline oi
RD 1
writing 3.1 math IO math 71.8 math 59.1
writing I math 30 math 169 math 120
math 158.4 writing 6.5 writing .2 writing 1.3
math 230 writing I3 writing 2 writing 4
Response Deprivation
27
GREG BL
352
~HATH
320
BL
RO
RD ,
5
1-22
PROBLEM ClORDS
-
20
-
lb
;;: 256
-
16
Lz 224
-
“IX
-
12 z
-
6
-
4
-
2
ACORRECT yg26 W
I----E 192 a = 160
296
../ 6
‘I
6
91
10
11
12
13
14
16
16
i4
, 0 17~
SAMUEL RD
RD I
.
q HATH PROBLEMS
320.
ACORRECT
ClORDS
-22 -
20
-
6
-
4
-
2
E: 126. z ~96
’
W
:64 a 32
.
\O ~5
16
FIGURE 3. Baseline levels (BL) of math and writing and schedule levels (RD) of instrumental responding for Greg and Samuel. An asterisk indicates that a point reflects only one day of responding. All other points reflect the average of two days of responding.
z
28
E. A. Konarski,
Jr,, C. R. Crowell, and L. M. Duggan BILLY
16:
BL
I--
1% fn = 13! w
RD
7
BL 1
,
RO
I
lIltlATH PROBLEM ACORRECT WORDS
11 10 9
dl2l
B
--I
2o. lo! =90 a
x75
0
W60 Ie r45
W e + 30 a 15 0
-l
320.
RO I
RO
1
q
t!RTH PRORLEMS ACORRECT WORDS
g266. W
4
d 256. ;224,
32
= 192. a = 160.
I:
0
2:
w 128. c L x96.. W c
0
0t
l-64 a 32
FIGURE responding sponding.
UY 2
1 -J 13
14
0
15
169
4. Baseline levels (BL) of math and writing and schedule levels (RD) of instrumental for Billy and Michael. An asterisk indicates that a point reflects only one day of reAll other points reflect the average of two days of responding.
Response Deprivation
29
Konarski et al. (1980, 1981)that the responsedeprivation hypothesis provides a means of establishing reinforcement schedules that meet a person’s changing behavioral needs. That is, given knowledge of the baseline levels of two academically important behaviors, a teacher could, at different times, designate either as the instrumental response. So long as the schedule requirements produced responsedeprivation, an increaseof instrumental responding would be expected in either case. GENERAL
DISCUSSION
The results of both experiments provided support for the proposed advantages (Konarski et al., 1980, 1981) of the response deprivation approach as an alternative method of establishing effective reinforcement scheduleswith the mentally retarded in the classroom. In conjunction with previous applied research (Konarski et al., 1980, 1982), it appears that the task of establishing effective reinforcement schedulesis not limited to finding already potent reinforcers but may be one of simply establishing schedulesthat produce response deprivation using behaviors already in the students’ repertoire. The accumulating evidence in support of the response deprivation hypothesis suggests that the reinforcement effect is simply the product of a person’s reaction to schedule requirements that conflict with his or her operant levels of behavior. Unfortunately, the mixed results of the control condition in this study failed to determine the necessity of the contingent relationship between the responsesin the schedule conditions. Perhaps another method than the one employed in this study would have been more appropriate (Timberlake, 1979). Further research will be required to address this issue. Other research issues raised by Konarski et al. (1981) regarding response deprivation include assessmentof the validity and generality of this approach across populations and settings and its applicability in a multiple-response setting. As support mounts, another critical question relates to the ability of paraprofessionals to design reinforcement schedules based on the response deprivation approach and the palatability of this method to these individuals relative to traditional approaches. There are several critical steps involved in the use of response deprivation to increase instrumental responding. The first is a paired-operant baseline assessmentof the behaviors of interest. This simply means the responding of the student is assessedduring a period of time when both tasks are freely and simultaneously available. Such an assessmentwould probably not require a restructuring of classroom procedure or much extra work on the part of the teacher. For example, the results of seatwork efforts might serve as an appropriate assessmentof behavior. Especially accommodating is the fact that the most convenient or educa-
30
E. A. Konarski,
Jr., C. R. Crowell, and L. M. Duggan
tionally relevant measures of the behaviors can be used, unlike with the Premack Principle, which requires baseline assessmentsusing a duration measure. Once the baseline assessmentis made, either response could serve as the one to be increased (instrumental response) or the one to serve as the reinforcer (contingent response).This meansthat the teacher could selectboth instrumental and contingent responses to meet the particular educational needs of a student. After designation of the instrumental and contingent responses,schedule requirements are developed that produce response deprivation. These are easily obtained using the response deprivation inequality as a guide. All a teacher has to do is determine exactly how much of the instrumental response he or she would like to see (I), place that value in the inequality along with the baseline rates of the behaviors, and find a value for the contingent response (C) that makes the inequality true. Although the inequality does not specify exact schedule requirements for the teacher, it does indicate the minimum amount of responding required to increaseinstrumental performance. The exact schedule values should be selected on the basis of several practical considerations. These include the total amount of work time available, the nature of the tasks, and the ability of the student to reach the instrumental requirement. That is, a child currently performing a task at 30% accuracy should not be expected to immediately be able to reach 90% accuracy criteria in order to earn the reinforcer, even though it would make the inequality true. The actual implementation of the schedule simply involves the presentation of the instrumental task materials, specification of the responserequirements, and subsequent delivery of the contingent response materials once the instrumental requirement is met. In summary, the use of response deprivation to control instrumental performance seemsespecially well suited to academic settings. This is because, as was demonstrated in this research effort, the steps required to implement this approach can readily be accommodated in such settings, and its advantages contribute directly to educational ideals. But perhaps the most compelling reason for the use of response deprivation to increase academic performance is its ability to identify readily available reinforcers. Specifically, these are any of the presently occurring behaviors of the student. Acknowledgemenfs-The preparation of this manuscript was supported by NIH ResearchGrant HD 15569-02from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, first author principal investigator. Portions of this paper were presented at the Fourteenth Annual Conference on Research in Mental Retardation/Developmental Disabilities, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, March, 1981, and at the Association for Behavior Analysis Annual Convention, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May, 1982. Leo M. Duggan is now in the graduate psychology program at SUNY-Buffalo.
Response
Deprivation
31
REFERENCES Allen, L. D., & Iwata, B. A. (1980). Reinforcing exercise maintenance using existing high-rate activities. Behavior Modification, 4, 337-354. Bateman, S. (1975). Application of Premack’s generalization on reinforcement to modify occupational behavior in two severely retarded individuals. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 79, 604-6 10. Hopkins, B. L., Schutte, R. C., & Garton, K. L. (1971). The effects of accessto a playroom on the rate and quality of printing and writing of first- and second-grade students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
4, 77-81.
Konarski, E. A., Jr., Crowell, C. R., Johnson, M. R., & Whitman, T. L. (1982). Response deprivation, reinforcement, and instrumental academic performance in an EMR classroom. Behavior Therapy, 13, 94-102. Konarski, E. A., Jr., Johnson, M. R., Crowell, C. R., & Whitman, T. L. (1980). Response deprivation and reinforcement in applied settings: A preliminary analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
13, 595-609.
Konarski, E. A., Jr., Johnson, M. R., Crowell, C. R., &Whitman, T. L. (1981). An alternative approach to reinforcement for applied researchers:Responsedeprivation. Behavior Therapy, 12, 653-666.
Premack, D. (1965). Reinforcement theory. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraskasymposium on mofivanon. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Premack, D. (1911). Catching up with common senseor two sides of a generalization: Reinforcement and punishment. In R. Glaser (Ed.), The nafure of reinforcement. New York: Academic Press. Timberlake, W. (1979). Licking one saccharin solution for accessto another: Contingent and noncontingent effects. Animal Learning and Behavior, 7, 277-288. Timberlake, W., &Allison, J. (1974). Responsedeprivation: An empirical approach to instrumental performance. Psychological Review, 81, 146-164. Timberlake, W., & Wozny, M. (1979). Reversibility of reinforcement between eating and running by schedule changes: A comparison of hypotheses and models. Animal Learning and Behavior, 7, 461-469.
Trap, J. J., Milner-Davis, P., Joseph, S., & Cooper, J. 0. (1978). The effects of feedback and consequenceson transitional cursive letter formation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 381-393. Whitman, T. L., & Scibak, J. W. (1979). Behavior modification research with the severely and profoundly retarded. In N. R. Ellis (Ed.), Handbook of mental deficiency, psychological fheory and research (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Vol. 6. pp. 15-31. 1985 Copyrighl
0270.3092/85 c 1985 Pergamon
$3.00+ .OQ Press Ltd.
The Use of Response Deprivation to Increase the Academic Performance of EMR Students Edward
A. Konarski,
The University Charles
R. Crowell
Jr.
of Alabama
and Leo M. Duggan
University of Notre
Dame
This research was designed to evaluate the proposed advantages of responsedeprivation OSthe basisfor establishing reinforcement schedules in applied settings. In Experiment I, response deprivation was used to improve the cursive writing of six EMR children, using math as the contingent response. The resultssuggestedthat writing improved in schedules that produced response deprivation and when the children were given corrective feedback on their performances, In Experiment 2, reversibility of reinforcement was investigated in four EMR children working on math and writing tasks. The students weresequentially presented two reinforcement schedulesthat produced responsedeprivation; however, the instrumental and contingent responses were reversedfrom the first to the second. Consistent with the responsedeprivation view, the results indicated an increasein instrumental responding in both schedules, which suggests that reversibility of reinforcement can be achieved simply by changes in schedule requirements. In summary, the results of both experiments offered support for responsedeprivation as an alternative method of producing reinforcement in educational settings.
Bateman (1975) demonstrated the use of the Premack Principle to modify the occupational performance of mentally retarded persons. This principle states that effective reinforcers are contingent responseswith a higher freeoperant probability of occurrence relative to the instrumental response (Premack, 1965). Although some recent research supports this approach (Allen Address reprint requests to: Edward A. Konarski, Jr., Department of Psychology, Box 2968, The University of Alabama, University, Alabama 35486. I5
16
E. A. Konarski, Jr., C. R. Crowell, and L. M. Duggan
& Iwata, 1980), other research with first-grade (Konarski, Johnson, Crowell, & Whitman, 1980)and mentally retarded students (Konarski, Crowell, Johnson, &Whitman, 1982)has suggestedthat the responsedeprivation hypothesis (Timberlake & Allison, 1974) is a better predictor of effective reinforcement schedules. The condition of response deprivation exists in a schedule when the programmed schedule requirements deprive the person of baseline accessto the contingent response if instrumental responding is maintained at its baseline level. That is, in order to regain his or her baseline level of the contingent response, a person has to increase instrumental responding over its baseline level in the schedule (thus creating the reinforcement effect). A specific baseline probability differential between responses is therefore not required to predict effective reinforcement schedules. Operationally, response deprivation exists if I/C>O,/Oc where I and C are the schedule requirements for the instrumental and contingent responses,respectively, while Oi and 0, represent their respective paired-operant levels. For example, a mentally retarded student has a baseline level of 20 minutes of coloring and 10 minutes of listening to music. The Premack Principle would predict that coloring could be used to reinforce music because it has the higher probability of occurrence, but listening to music could never serve as a reinforcer for coloring. However, the response deprivation hypothesis would predict that either response could reinforce the other if the schedule requirements produce responsedeprivation. Examples of effective reinforcement schedules would be 10 minutes of music earning 10 minutes of coloring (10/10>20/10) and 10 minutes of coloring earning 2 minutes of listening to music (10/2> 10/20). Note that the response deprivation hypothesis predicts that coloring, even though it is the higher probability behavior, would fail to reinforce listening to music if the schedule requirements did not produce response deprivation (e.g., 5 minutes of music earning 10 minutes of coloring, or 5/10= 10/20). Konarski, Johnson, Crowell, and Whitman (1981) suggestedthat response deprivation might provide behavior modifiers with an alternative to traditional approaches to reinforcement used in treatment settings (e.g., Empirical Law of Effect; Premack Principle). Furthermore, these authors argued that an approach based on the response deprivation hypothesis (Timberlake 8~Allison, 1974)would offer several educational advantages. These included an increase in the quantity of potential reinforcers, an improvement in the quality of reinforcers, the provision for reversibility of reinforcement effects through schedule changes, and the opportunity for assessmentof behavior, using the most convenient and academically relevant response measures. To date, research has yet to provide support for these proposed advantages. Furthermore, given the difficulty of establishing effective reinforcement schedules with the mentally retarded (Whitman & Scibak, 1979), there is a need for research investigating the applied utility of this hypothesis.
ResponseDeprivation
17
The present research was designed to demonstrate the utility of response deprivation with the mentally retarded and to evaluate some of the proposed advantages of this approach for establishing reinforcement schedulesin academic settings. The first experiment used response deprivation as the basis for improving the cursive writing of EMR children. In the second experiment, reversibility of reinforcement by schedule changes alone was examined.
EXPERIMENT
1
Positive reinforcement has been shown effective for improving the quality of students’ handwriting (e.g., Hopkins, Schutte, & Garton, 1971; Trap, Mimer-Davis, Joseph, & Cooper, 1978). The purpose of this experiment was to employ response deprivation as the basis for a reinforcement program designedto improve the cursive writing of six EMR students. To assessthe advantage of this approach that any response can serve as a reinforcer for any other, math was selected a priori as the contingent response. The selection of this educationally important behavior also indicates the potential for improvement in the quality of reinforcers for applied use. Finally, because between-responsecomparisons such as those required by Premack’s approach (e.g., Premack, 1965) are unnecessary, a different response measure was employed for each behavior.
METHOD
Participants and Setting Six male students from a public school EMR classroom participated. They ranged in age from 7 to 11 years old and were labeled EMR basedon academic performance and standard intelligence tests. They were members of a work group devised by the teacher for purposes of small-group interaction. None of the children presented any unusual behavior problems. The experiment was conducted in the children’s regular classroom. The participants sat at their normal desks, which were loosely arranged into a semicircle. The experimenter was responsible for the children when the study was in progress, while the teacher interacted with the remaining students in the class. Dependent Variables and Recording The percentage of words written correctly and the number of math problems attempted were the dependent variables. A percentage measure was used for writing, because it appeared to best reflect the students’ ability on this
18
E. A. Konarski, Jr., C. R. Crowell, and L. M. Duggan
task. Five of the children were asked to write at least 25 words a day, whereas one (Michael) was asked to attempt 27. This was done to ensure that the students engaged in the minimal amount of instrumental response needed to get a reliable assessmentof writing ability. The percentage measure was calculated by dividing the number of words written correctly by 25 (27 for Michael) and multiplying by 100. A correctly written word had to contain all of the components of the model word (e.g., curves, crosses,dots, letters in correct order, uppercaseand lowercase letters) and had to be written within the ruled lines of the paper, and no one component of a word could deviate from the model word by more than 4 mm as measured by a template. An attempted math problem was any math problem for which the child entered an answer in the appropriate place. The math and writing tasks were taken from a variety of sources supplied by the teacher. The degree of difficulty of both kinds of tasks remained constant throughout the study, but the exact stimulus materials varied from day to day. Reliability of Recording The experimenter (the principal investigator) scored each child’s daily work sheets. Reliability was assesseddaily by having an undergraduate psychology student restore all of the children’s work sheets after the session. Reliability on writing behavior was calculated by dividing the number of words each person scored as correctly written (A) by this score plus the number of words either observer alone scored as correct (D). This total (A/A + D) was multiplied by 100 to obtain a percentage-of-agreement score. Agreement on incorrectly written words was obtained with the same formula. The same method was used to calculate reliability on the number of math problems attempted. The results averaged across all children were 88% agreement for percentage of words written correctly (range = 50% to 100%) and 98% for incorrectly written words (range = 90% to 100%). The extreme range of agreement for correctly written words was due to the low frequency of occurrence of this behavior during the early phases of the study. That was why scores were calculated on both correctly and incorrectly written words. For the number of math problems attempted, the mean agreement score was 99% (range = 94% to 100%). Procedures The study was conducted for 40 minutes Monday through Friday, beginning at approximately I:00 p.m. When the children were seated and quiet, the experimenter put the work materials in front of each child and read the instructions.
ResponseDeprivation
I9
Baseline. During baseline the following instructions were used: Hi fellas. On the table in front of you are two piles, oneof math and one of writing. You can work on whicheverone you wish, the math or the writing, it’s up to you. Do whateveryou want. However, you should try to finish all of the writing work. The only rules are that you stay in your seat, you must not talk to me or to each other. Work quietly and on only onetask at a time. We will be working for 40 minutes (here the experimenter would point to a number on the clock and tell the children that it was over when the big hand reachedit). If you have any questionsraiseyour hand and I will answerthem. Does everyoneunderstandthe instructions? Then begin.
In short, both tasks were simultaneously and freely available to the children. If any of the children stopped working for more than 2 minutes, the experimenter would prompt them to please continue working. At the end of the session, the experimenter told the children to stop and collected all the materials. Feedback and corrective feedback. The purpose of these phases was to control for the increased feedback that would necessarily occur once a reinforcement schedulewas implemented. The feedback and corrective feedback phases were initiated similarly to baseline; however, during the session, the experimenter checked each child’s writing behavior three times, using the template as a guide. In the feedback phase, the experimenter simply told the child which words were written incorrectly and placed check marks beside them. In the corrective feedback phase, the children were also told why a word was scored as incorrect and how to correct that mistake. Schedules.Responsedeprivation-present (RD) and responsedeprivation-absent (RD) schedules were conducted in an identical fashion. Only the writing materials (the instrumental response) were placed on the children’s desks to start, and then the instructions were read. Today we have new rules. You have one pile of materials in front of you. In order for you to get your math you must do your writing first. You must stay in your seat, you must not talk to me or to each other. Please work quietly. We will be working for 40 minutes (indicating the time in the same manner as before). If you have questions, raise your hand and I will answer them. Does everyone understand the instructions? Then begin.
The instrumental response requirement (I) was conveyed to the children individually in terms of the number of words they would have to write correctly to gain accessto math. The experimenter continued to check each child’s writing three times per session and give corrective feedback. In both the RD and RD schedules the contingent requirement was made equal to the children’s average number of math problems attempted in the
20
E. A. Konarski, Jr., C. R. Crowell, and L. hf. Duggan
final six sessions of the immediately preceding corrective feedback phase (C = 0,). In the RD schedules, the instrumental requirement was larger than the average percentage of words written correctly in the corrective feedback phase (I > O,), thereby fulfilling the inequality, I/C > Oi/Oc. The exact values of I were chosen in conjunction with the teacher, so that they would be a realistically obtainable goal for the child yet would produce a significant increasein performance if met. In the RD schedules, the children’s writing requirement was equal to or lessthan their percentageof correctly written words in the preceding corrective feedback phase (I SO,), resulting in the situation I/C < O,/O(. The exact schedule requirements are presented in Table 1. Noncontingent contra/. In this phase, only the contingent responsematerials were on the children’s desks at the start of the session. Each child was presented with his contingent allotment of math (C) and, after completing it, was presentedwith the instrumental responsematerials (writing). This ensured that the children had accessto the contingent responseas in the RD schedules but without a contingent relationship between the responses. Design
The conditions of this study were sequentially applied until the entire treatment package (corrective feedback plus reinforcement contingency) was in effect. For four of the children, a noncontingent control was implemented, and the contingency was then reinstituted. The order of conditions for Pete, Michael, and Brad was baseline, corrective feedback, RD, control, and RD. The planned order of phases for Greg, Samuel, and Tim was baseline, feedback, corrective feedback, RD, RD, control, and RD. However, due to ex-
TABLE Schedule Reauirements
1. for Exoeriment
Corrective Feedback Writing/Math o,/oc Brad Pete Michael
Greg Samuel Tim
32%/104 23%/29 17%/28
1 RD Writing/Math I/C
Control Math C
68%/104 48%/29 33%/28
104 29 28
Corrective Feedback Writing/Math O./O.
RD Writing/Math 1/C
RD Writing/Math I/C
11To/38 8%/140 6%/41
8%/38 8%/140 4%/41
44%/38 48%/140 48%/41
Control Math C 38 -
Response Deprivation
21
cessive absences, Samuel and Tim were unable to complete their final two planned stages.The feedback phase was a control for the corrective feedback phaseto assessthe effects of merely knowing which words were correctly and incorrectly written. The RD phase was a control for the RD phase to assess the effects of presenting math in a contingent fashion in the absence of response deprivation to determine the necessity of this variable for producing reinforcement. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figures 1 and 2 depict the children’s cursive writing (instrumental responding) across all phases of the study. The data of Greg, Samuel, and Tim indicated little or no increase of behavior during the feedback phase. Similarly, only two of the six children (Greg and Michael) showed a slight increase of behavior in the corrective feedback phase suggesting that these variables alone were insufficient for significantly improving cursive writing. This finding is in slight contrast with that of Trap et al. (1978) who found more uniform, albeit small, improvement in writing due to corrective feedback. However, the combination of corrective feedback and the RD contingency resulted in significant increases in the percentage of words written correctly for all of the children. This finding fully replicates that of Trap et al. (1978) who found feedback plus reinforcement maximally effective. In contrast, responding in the RD condition indicated that the addition of a contingency which continued corrective feedback but lacked responsedeprivation had no positive effect on writing. This condition controlled for the possibility that the contingent presentation of math by itself might produce the reinforcement effect. Because it did not, response deprivation was supported as a necessary component of effective reinforcement schedules. The data across the RD and RD schedules is consistent with that of earlier applied research (Konarski et al., 1980, 1982) in support of response deprivation. The control condition had varying effects on the children’s writing behavior. Only Michael’s behavior showed a clear reversal in writing accuracy. Brad’s behavior showed a strong decelerating trend in the control condition but due to two overlapping points in the final RD phase his results were not conclusive. For Greg, the control phase produced an interruption in a strong accelerating trend which was continued in the reinstatement of the RD phase. However, the overlap of points across the three phases again weakens the data. Finally, no reversal was apparent in Pete’s instrumental responding. These differential results across children were consistent with earlier findings (Konarski et al., 1980) and prohibit firm conclusions concerning the necessity of a contingent relationship between the responsesto produce reinforcement. Finally, this study appears to have demonstrated that the responsedeprivation approach can be used as the basis of a reinforcement program to im-
22
E. A. Konarski,
3RFID
Ccl9R FBCK
BL
0
?
Jr., C. R. Crowell, and L. M. Duggan
c
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
34
4Z
45
9
12
,5
IV
2,
24
27
30
33
36
39
4L
45
9
L2
L:,
re
2,
L4
2-I
PO
z:
3G
39
IL
45
SESSIONS
FIGURE 1. Daily writing behavior of Brad, Michael, and Pete across Baseline (BL), Corrective Feedback (Corr Fbck), Response Deprivation Present (RD). and Control (Cant) phases.
-. % -
0 10
20
30
4c
50
60
PERCENT 70
80
90
z’w
--1--
100
kc
0
CORRECT 10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
CD3 rl-n
100
0
0
24
E. A. Konarski,
Jr., C. R. Crowell, and L. M. Duggan
prove the academic behavior of mentally retarded children. Furthermore, the advantagesof increasing the quantity and improving the quality of reinforcers were made obvious by the a priori selection of math as the contingent response. The flexibility of measurement offered by this approach, due to the fact that a between-response comparison is unnecessary, was also shown. EXPERIMENT
2
The purpose of this experiment was to investigate reversibility of reinforcement using two educationally relevant responses (math and writing). Reinforcement reversibility refers to the possibility that a given response could serve to reinforce a second behavior at one time and could itself be reinforced by that same behavior at another. A finding of this nature would have obvious educational relevance because,given two academic behaviors, it would be of value to be able to select the instrumental and contingent responses according to the educational needs of a student at a particular time. According to the response deprivation hypothesis, reversibility of reinforcement should occur on the basis of schedule changes alone. That is, response A could serve to reinforce response B, so long as the schedule requirements produced response deprivation (i.e., B/A > O,,/OJ, whereas B could reinforce A at another time, given appropriate schedule requirements (i.e., A/B>O,/O,). In contrast, a competing hypothesis, the Premack Principle, suggeststhat reversibility should occur only when the probability differential between the responsesis altered (Premack, 1965, 1971). Therefore, response A should serve to reinforce response B only if it has a relatively higher probability of occurrence at that time. Later, B could reinforce A only if B then had the relatively higher probability of occurrence. Consistent with recent laboratory research findings (Timberlake & Wozny, 1979), it was hypothesized in the present study that changes in schedule requirements alone would be sufficient to produce reversibility of reinforcement effects. METHOD
Participants and Setting Four male children attending a public school classroom for EMR students participated (Billy, Greg, Michael, and Samuel). Three of these students were participants in Experiment 1. The new student (Billy) could be described similarly to those children. The study was conducted in the children’s regular classroom, at a large table to the side of the class. When the study was in progress the teacher interacted with the other children in the classroom, while the experimenter was again responsible for the participants.
Response Deprivation Dependent
25
Variables and Recording
The number of math problems attempted and the number of correctly written words were the dependent variables and were defined as in Experiment 1. However, the number of correctly written words was not converted to a percentage measure in this study because, although it was desired, improvement in the quality of writing was not the particular goal of this experiment. The experimenter (an undergraduate psychology student) scored each child’s daily work sheets. With the assistance of an independent observer, reliability on the experimenter’s scoring was assessed10 times per child, with at least two checks per experimental condition. Reliability of recording was calculated according to the formula used in Experiment 1 (A/A + D x 100). The average results across all assessmentswere a mean agreement score of 85% for correct words (range = 33% to 100%) and 97% for incorrectly written words (range = 92% to 100%). As in Experiment 1, the low frequency of correctly written words produced a wide range of agreement scores.For number of math problems attempted, the mean agreementscore was 98% (range = 93% to 100%). Design
A reversal design was employed. All children were first presented with a paired-operant baseline where both responseswere freely available. In the first schedule phase, the apparent higher probability behavior served as the contingent responsein the reinforcement schedulesfor Greg and Samuel, whereas Michael and Billy were presented with schedules where the apparent lower probability behavior served as the contingent response. After a return to baseline, the children were presented with a second schedule; however, in this casethe designated contingent and instrumental responseswere reversed for each child. Both schedules for the children produced response deprivation. Procedures
The study was conducted for 40 minutes daily, Monday through Friday, immediately after the children’s lunch-recessbreak. The children were usually seated at the table when the experimenter arrived in the classroom. If they were not, they immediately came to the table when the experimenter walked in. The procedures and instructions during baseline were the same as in Experiment 1, except that the instruction to attempt a certain amount of writing was omitted, because a minimum number of words to judge writing quality was unnecessary. On the days when a schedule was in effect, everything was the same except that only one pile of materials (the instrumental responsematerials) was placed in front of each child. The instructions were similar to those of Ex-
26
E. A. Konarski, Jr., C. R. Crowell. and L. M. Duggan
periment 1. The experimenter checked each child’s work three times per session to seeif he had completed the task. If he had, he was given the contingent materials and was told that he could work on either subject for the remainder of the period. Although such a choice was essentially the sameas that offered in baseline, it was noted that, for the most part, children tended to work on their contingent response during this period. The schedule requirements were established so that I/C > Oi/Oc was true. This task was accomplished once again by making C = 0, and I > Oi. These values are presented in Table 2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 3 displays the baseline levels of math and writing and the levels of instrumental responding during the schedulesfor Greg and Samuel. This same information is depicted in Figure 4 for Michael and Billy. Each point represents the average of two days of data, except where noted. Because the children always completed their baseline amount of the contingent response during the schedules, graphic representation of these data was omitted, so that the increasesof instrumental responding could be more clearly observed. Although the baseline data proved somewhat variable, the figures indicate increasesof instrumental responding over baseline levels for all of the children in both scheduleconditions. Additionally, only Billy’s data indicates a reversal of probability differential from the first to the second baseline. These findings replicate those of Timberlake and Wozny (1979), who demonstrated with rats that reversibility of reinforcement effects could be produced by schedule changes alone, and fully support the predictions of the response deprivation hypothesis. These results do not appear compatible with the postulation that there needsto be a reversal of response probabilities to produce reversibility of reinforcement (Premack, 1965, 197l), becauseonly Billy showed an apparent reversal of baseline probabilities. The results of this study offer empirical support for the suggestion of
Instrumental
Samuel Greg Michael Billy
Schedule
TABLE 2. Requirements
for Experiment
2
Baseline Oi
RD 1
Baseline oi
RD 1
writing 3.1 math IO math 71.8 math 59.1
writing I math 30 math 169 math 120
math 158.4 writing 6.5 writing .2 writing 1.3
math 230 writing I3 writing 2 writing 4
Response Deprivation
27
GREG BL
352
~HATH
320
BL
RO
RD ,
5
1-22
PROBLEM ClORDS
-
20
-
lb
;;: 256
-
16
Lz 224
-
“IX
-
12 z
-
6
-
4
-
2
ACORRECT yg26 W
I----E 192 a = 160
296
../ 6
‘I
6
91
10
11
12
13
14
16
16
i4
, 0 17~
SAMUEL RD
RD I
.
q HATH PROBLEMS
320.
ACORRECT
ClORDS
-22 -
20
-
6
-
4
-
2
E: 126. z ~96
’
W
:64 a 32
.
\O ~5
16
FIGURE 3. Baseline levels (BL) of math and writing and schedule levels (RD) of instrumental responding for Greg and Samuel. An asterisk indicates that a point reflects only one day of responding. All other points reflect the average of two days of responding.
z
28
E. A. Konarski,
Jr,, C. R. Crowell, and L. M. Duggan BILLY
16:
BL
I--
1% fn = 13! w
RD
7
BL 1
,
RO
I
lIltlATH PROBLEM ACORRECT WORDS
11 10 9
dl2l
B
--I
2o. lo! =90 a
x75
0
W60 Ie r45
W e + 30 a 15 0
-l
320.
RO I
RO
1
q
t!RTH PRORLEMS ACORRECT WORDS
g266. W
4
d 256. ;224,
32
= 192. a = 160.
I:
0
2:
w 128. c L x96.. W c
0
0t
l-64 a 32
FIGURE responding sponding.
UY 2
1 -J 13
14
0
15
169
4. Baseline levels (BL) of math and writing and schedule levels (RD) of instrumental for Billy and Michael. An asterisk indicates that a point reflects only one day of reAll other points reflect the average of two days of responding.
Response Deprivation
29
Konarski et al. (1980, 1981)that the responsedeprivation hypothesis provides a means of establishing reinforcement schedules that meet a person’s changing behavioral needs. That is, given knowledge of the baseline levels of two academically important behaviors, a teacher could, at different times, designate either as the instrumental response. So long as the schedule requirements produced responsedeprivation, an increaseof instrumental responding would be expected in either case. GENERAL
DISCUSSION
The results of both experiments provided support for the proposed advantages (Konarski et al., 1980, 1981) of the response deprivation approach as an alternative method of establishing effective reinforcement scheduleswith the mentally retarded in the classroom. In conjunction with previous applied research (Konarski et al., 1980, 1982), it appears that the task of establishing effective reinforcement schedulesis not limited to finding already potent reinforcers but may be one of simply establishing schedulesthat produce response deprivation using behaviors already in the students’ repertoire. The accumulating evidence in support of the response deprivation hypothesis suggests that the reinforcement effect is simply the product of a person’s reaction to schedule requirements that conflict with his or her operant levels of behavior. Unfortunately, the mixed results of the control condition in this study failed to determine the necessity of the contingent relationship between the responsesin the schedule conditions. Perhaps another method than the one employed in this study would have been more appropriate (Timberlake, 1979). Further research will be required to address this issue. Other research issues raised by Konarski et al. (1981) regarding response deprivation include assessmentof the validity and generality of this approach across populations and settings and its applicability in a multiple-response setting. As support mounts, another critical question relates to the ability of paraprofessionals to design reinforcement schedules based on the response deprivation approach and the palatability of this method to these individuals relative to traditional approaches. There are several critical steps involved in the use of response deprivation to increase instrumental responding. The first is a paired-operant baseline assessmentof the behaviors of interest. This simply means the responding of the student is assessedduring a period of time when both tasks are freely and simultaneously available. Such an assessmentwould probably not require a restructuring of classroom procedure or much extra work on the part of the teacher. For example, the results of seatwork efforts might serve as an appropriate assessmentof behavior. Especially accommodating is the fact that the most convenient or educa-
30
E. A. Konarski,
Jr., C. R. Crowell, and L. M. Duggan
tionally relevant measures of the behaviors can be used, unlike with the Premack Principle, which requires baseline assessmentsusing a duration measure. Once the baseline assessmentis made, either response could serve as the one to be increased (instrumental response) or the one to serve as the reinforcer (contingent response).This meansthat the teacher could selectboth instrumental and contingent responses to meet the particular educational needs of a student. After designation of the instrumental and contingent responses,schedule requirements are developed that produce response deprivation. These are easily obtained using the response deprivation inequality as a guide. All a teacher has to do is determine exactly how much of the instrumental response he or she would like to see (I), place that value in the inequality along with the baseline rates of the behaviors, and find a value for the contingent response (C) that makes the inequality true. Although the inequality does not specify exact schedule requirements for the teacher, it does indicate the minimum amount of responding required to increaseinstrumental performance. The exact schedule values should be selected on the basis of several practical considerations. These include the total amount of work time available, the nature of the tasks, and the ability of the student to reach the instrumental requirement. That is, a child currently performing a task at 30% accuracy should not be expected to immediately be able to reach 90% accuracy criteria in order to earn the reinforcer, even though it would make the inequality true. The actual implementation of the schedule simply involves the presentation of the instrumental task materials, specification of the responserequirements, and subsequent delivery of the contingent response materials once the instrumental requirement is met. In summary, the use of response deprivation to control instrumental performance seemsespecially well suited to academic settings. This is because, as was demonstrated in this research effort, the steps required to implement this approach can readily be accommodated in such settings, and its advantages contribute directly to educational ideals. But perhaps the most compelling reason for the use of response deprivation to increase academic performance is its ability to identify readily available reinforcers. Specifically, these are any of the presently occurring behaviors of the student. Acknowledgemenfs-The preparation of this manuscript was supported by NIH ResearchGrant HD 15569-02from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, first author principal investigator. Portions of this paper were presented at the Fourteenth Annual Conference on Research in Mental Retardation/Developmental Disabilities, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, March, 1981, and at the Association for Behavior Analysis Annual Convention, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May, 1982. Leo M. Duggan is now in the graduate psychology program at SUNY-Buffalo.
Response
Deprivation
31
REFERENCES Allen, L. D., & Iwata, B. A. (1980). Reinforcing exercise maintenance using existing high-rate activities. Behavior Modification, 4, 337-354. Bateman, S. (1975). Application of Premack’s generalization on reinforcement to modify occupational behavior in two severely retarded individuals. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 79, 604-6 10. Hopkins, B. L., Schutte, R. C., & Garton, K. L. (1971). The effects of accessto a playroom on the rate and quality of printing and writing of first- and second-grade students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
4, 77-81.
Konarski, E. A., Jr., Crowell, C. R., Johnson, M. R., & Whitman, T. L. (1982). Response deprivation, reinforcement, and instrumental academic performance in an EMR classroom. Behavior Therapy, 13, 94-102. Konarski, E. A., Jr., Johnson, M. R., Crowell, C. R., & Whitman, T. L. (1980). Response deprivation and reinforcement in applied settings: A preliminary analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
13, 595-609.
Konarski, E. A., Jr., Johnson, M. R., Crowell, C. R., &Whitman, T. L. (1981). An alternative approach to reinforcement for applied researchers:Responsedeprivation. Behavior Therapy, 12, 653-666.
Premack, D. (1965). Reinforcement theory. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraskasymposium on mofivanon. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Premack, D. (1911). Catching up with common senseor two sides of a generalization: Reinforcement and punishment. In R. Glaser (Ed.), The nafure of reinforcement. New York: Academic Press. Timberlake, W. (1979). Licking one saccharin solution for accessto another: Contingent and noncontingent effects. Animal Learning and Behavior, 7, 277-288. Timberlake, W., &Allison, J. (1974). Responsedeprivation: An empirical approach to instrumental performance. Psychological Review, 81, 146-164. Timberlake, W., & Wozny, M. (1979). Reversibility of reinforcement between eating and running by schedule changes: A comparison of hypotheses and models. Animal Learning and Behavior, 7, 461-469.
Trap, J. J., Milner-Davis, P., Joseph, S., & Cooper, J. 0. (1978). The effects of feedback and consequenceson transitional cursive letter formation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 381-393. Whitman, T. L., & Scibak, J. W. (1979). Behavior modification research with the severely and profoundly retarded. In N. R. Ellis (Ed.), Handbook of mental deficiency, psychological fheory and research (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.