Citation
Evaluation of Preference for Reinforcement or Response Cost Conditions

Material Information

Title:
Evaluation of Preference for Reinforcement or Response Cost Conditions
Creator:
Whitehouse, Cristina
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
english
Physical Description:
1 online resource (53 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.S.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Psychology
Committee Chair:
Vollmer, Timothy R.
Committee Members:
Abrams, Lise
Iwata, Brian
Graduation Date:
8/7/2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
City squares ( jstor )
Cost efficiency ( jstor )
Ectromelia ( jstor )
Educational evaluation ( jstor )
Experiment design ( jstor )
Experimentation ( jstor )
Ions ( jstor )
Mathematics ( jstor )
Side effects ( jstor )
Working conditions ( jstor )
Psychology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
choice, preference, punishment, reinforcement
Genre:
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
Psychology thesis, M.S.

Notes

Abstract:
The use of response cost and reinforcement-based interventions (e.g., token economies, group level systems, grading with points) is common in academic settings. Despite the ubiquity of these interventions, few studies have evaluated child preference for response cost versus reinforcement. Furthermore, the studies have yielded mixed results. The present study involved assessments of child preference for reinforcement or response cost in a series of 4 experiments. In each experiment, typically developing children were repeatedly presented with a computerized matching to sample task under both reinforcement and response cost conditions. Following exposure to each condition, children were asked to select their subsequent working conditions. Child selections were the primary dependent measure of choice. This preparation was repeated using different stimuli, to assess if preference results could be reproduced. Additionally, this preparation was repeated using math problems appropriate for the child?s grade level. Results of Experiments I and II showed that preference was influenced by variables other than the contingencies presented. In Experiment III, 8 of the 12 participants showed a preference for reinforcement. However, preliminary results of Experiment IV indicated that numbering the trials during the session may attenuate any overall preference for reinforcement. These data have implications for assessing client treatment preference and the acceptability of response cost procedures. ( en )
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local:
Adviser: Vollmer, Timothy R.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Cristina Whitehouse.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Embargo Date:
10/8/2010
Resource Identifier:
004979751 ( ALEPH )
705932497 ( OCLC )
Classification:
LD1780 2010 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

EVALUATION OF PREFERENCE FOR RE INFORCEMENT OR RESPONSE COST CONDITIONS By CRISTINA MARIA WHITEHOUSE A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORID A IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2010 1

PAGE 2

2010 Cristina Maria Whitehouse 2

PAGE 3

To my Dad, Henry Remsen Whitehouse II 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my sincere gr atitude to my mentor throughout graduate school, Dr. Timothy Vollmer, for all of hi s immeasurable support and guidance. I would also like to thank the members of my committ ee, Drs. Lise Abrams and Brian Iwata for their editorial comments and assistance. Additional thanks are given to my undergraduate research volunteers: Rocio Cuevas, Sean Jones, Stephanie Moir, Dana Spears, Julia Uthmeier, and Danielle Willis fo r all their assistance with data collection. I would also like to thank my mother, Ro salia M. Whitehouse, my sister, Joan M. Whitehouse, for their unwavering love, support, and encouragement. Finally, to my husband, Ron, and son, Colin, thank you for making everything worthwhile. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDG MENTS .................................................................................................. 4 LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 7 LIST OF FI GURES .......................................................................................................... 8 ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... 9 INTRODUCT ION ........................................................................................................... 11 GENERAL METHOD ..................................................................................................... 18 Setting and Ma terials .............................................................................................. 18 Session Se quence .................................................................................................. 18 Dependent Vari ables .............................................................................................. 20 Data Collection and Inter observer Agr eement ........................................................ 20 EXPERIMENT I: RESPONSE COST VS. REINFORCEMENT: COLORED BACKGROUND S .................................................................................................... 22 Method .................................................................................................................... 22 Subjects ............................................................................................................ 22 Procedur e ......................................................................................................... 22 Results and Discussion ........................................................................................... 23 EXPERIMENT II: RESPONSE COST VS. REINFORCEMENT: DIFFERENT SYMBOL SE TS ...................................................................................................... 27 Methods .................................................................................................................. 27 Subjects ............................................................................................................ 27 Procedur e ......................................................................................................... 27 Design .............................................................................................................. 27 Results and Discussion ........................................................................................... 28 EXPERIMENT III: RESPONSE COST VS. REINFORCEMEN: COLOR AND SYMBOLS CONT ROLLED ..................................................................................... 33 Methods .................................................................................................................. 33 Subjects ............................................................................................................ 33 Procedur e ......................................................................................................... 33 Design .............................................................................................................. 33 Results and Di scussions ......................................................................................... 34 5

PAGE 6

EXPERIMENT IV: RESPONSE COST VS REINFORCEMEN T: NUMBERING TRIALS ................................................................................................................... 43 Methods .................................................................................................................. 43 Subjects ............................................................................................................ 43 Procedur e ......................................................................................................... 43 Design .............................................................................................................. 43 Results and Discussion ........................................................................................... 43 GENERAL DISCUSSION .............................................................................................. 46 LIST OF RE FERENCES ............................................................................................... 50 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................................ 53 6

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1. Summary of latencies, point comparisons, and si de effects. ................................. 26 4-1. Average latencies for Elena and Al len. .................................................................. 31 4-2. Points at first choice point for Elena and Allen. ...................................................... 32 5-1. Latency summary fo r all partici pants. ..................................................................... 40 5-2. Point totals at the first choice point in each phas e. ................................................ 41 7

PAGE 8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1. Proportion of choice selections per session for Nic ole and Mari bel. ...................... 25 4-1. Proportion of choice selections per session for El ena and Allen. ........................... 30 5-1. Results for participants showing a preference for re inforcement. .......................... 37 5-2. Results for participants showing indiffe rence. ........................................................ 38 5-3. Results for participant showing a preference for re sponse cost. ............................ 39 6-1. Results for Cole, Ky lie, Monica, and Amelia ......................................................... 45 8

PAGE 9

Abstract of Thesis Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulf illment of the Requirements for t he Degree of Master of Science EVALUATION OF PREFERENCE FOR RE INFORCEMENT OR RESPONSE COST CONDITIONS By Cristina Maria Whitehouse August 2010 Chair: Timothy R. Vollmer Major: Psychology The use of response cost and reinforcem ent-based interventions (e.g., token economies, group level systems, grading with points) is common in academic settings. Despite the ubiquity of these interventions few studies have evaluated child preference for response cost versus reinforcement. Fu rthermore, the studies have yielded mixed results. The present study involved assessment s of child preference for reinforcement or response cost in a series of 4 experiments. In each ex periment, typically developing children were repeatedly presented with a computerized matching to sample task under both reinforcement and response cost conditions Following exposure to each condition, children were asked to select their subseque nt working conditions. Child selections were the primary dependent measure of choi ce. This preparation was repeated using different stimuli, to assess if preference re sults could be reproduced. Additionally, this preparation was repeated using math problems appropriate for the childs grade level. Results of Experiments I and II showed that preference was influenced by variables other than the contingencies presented. In Experiment III, 8 of the 12 participants showed a preference for reinforcement. However, preliminary results of Experiment IV indicated that numbering t he trials during the session may attenuate any overall 9

PAGE 10

10 preference for reinforcement. These data have implications for assessing client treatment preference and the acceptabi lity of response cost procedures.

PAGE 11

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION When given options, practitioners tend to choose interventions that are effective, least restrictive, and likely to be implemented by the client or caregivers. Variables that influence treatment selection decisions inclu de treatment practicality, efficacy, social acceptability, and client pref erence (Hanley, Piazza, Fis her, Contrucci, & Maglieri, 1997). Although providing clients with opportunities to choose is an important part of a clients right to effective treatment (Bannerman, Sheldon, Sherman, & Harchik, 1990), research in the area of client treatment preference is sparse. Recently, however, there have been some investigations t hat have primarily focused on client treatment preference. Hanley et al., (1997), fo r example, examined preference for two commonly recommended and equally effective interventions, functional communication training (FCT) and nonc ontingent reinforcement (NCR), in the reduction of aggression with two participants. The authors utilized a concurrent-chain procedure, commonly used in choice experiment s, to identify preference. The primary dependent variable was the number of swit ch button presses among concurrently available buttons. Each button was correlated with access to different treatments. Results for both participants indicated a pref erence for the FCT training. The authors suggested that response-dependent schedules may be preferred to responseindependent schedules because participants behavior controls the rate of reinforcement. Importantly, the study es tablished a method for assessing client treatment preference for children with limited verbal skills. Hanley, Piazza, Fisher, and Maglieri ( 2005) applied a similar concurrent-chain procedure to investigate treatment pref erence for FCT with and without punishment. 11

PAGE 12

Results from the two participants indicated preferences fo r FCT with punishment. The punishment component was a 30-s hands-down procedure, and in addition, for one participant, a 30-s visual block. The authors concluded that if the interventions were selected based solely on stru cture or name, FCT with punishment may not have been chosen because of the punishment componen t. Furthermore, the authors suggested that recent trends toward eschewing pun ishment procedures based on name or structure would have e liminated a treatment that was both effective and preferred by these two individuals. The study raises important ethical implications of examining treatment preference when cons idering interventions that involve punishment. The decision to use or not use punishment procedures is a t opic of long standing controversy in behavior analysis. This i ssue is often debated in the context of punishment procedures that are highly restrictiv e or aversive, such as shock. However, punishment is defined technically as any stimulus change occurring after a response that decreases the future probability of that response (Michael, 1993). Thus, interventions such as response cost, which in volves contingent loss of reinforcers, are punishment procedures if they resu lt in reductions in behavior. Response cost has been shown to be an effe ctive behavior reduction treatment on a variety of topographies from skin picking (Allen & Harris, 1966) to sleep problems in children (Piazza & Fisher, 1991). Response co st also is commonly used in academic environments, such as when points are lost contingent on incorrect answers, and has been shown to be effective (Phillips, Phillips, Fixsen & Wolf, 1971). Additionally, several investigations have used academic tasks to compare reinforcement procedures to response cost procedures (Brent & Rout h, 1978; Broughton & Lahey, 1978; Erickson, 12

PAGE 13

Wyne, Routh, 1973; Holt & Hobbs,1979; Panek, 1970). In t hese studies, the dependent measure typically was the num ber of correct and incorrect responses to a particular academic task. Overall, result s of these studies were mix ed as to which procedure is more effective. Although response cost procedures have been shown to be effective, they are often avoided by practitioners in favor of reinforcement-based procedures for various reasons including the presumed increased pot ential for negative side effects that are often associated with punish ment procedures (Azrin & Holz, 1966). However, few studies have actually reported side effect s associated with response cost. In fact, Sprute, Williams, and McLaughlin (1990) did not observe any negative side effects when tokens were removed contingent on problem behavior, nor did a questionnaire given to the children indicate any differenc e in the ratings between reinforcement and response cost. However, Boren and Colman (1970) observed an increase in escape behavior, such as skipping meetings, among de linquent soldiers during response cost conditions compared to reinforcement condi tions. The authors concluded that some counter control may have been observed given the overall restrictiveness of the environment. Sattler, Betz, and Zellner (1978) suggested that negative side effects may be more frequent when earned points are re moved, rather than when points earned noncontingently are removed. Overall, how ever, the number of studies reporting negative side effects associated wit h response cost is few. Another reason practitioners may avoid the use of response cost is because it is viewed as a more intrusive, restrictive procedure. However, research on treatment acceptability has shown that parents repeatedl y rate response cost favorably (Blampied 13

PAGE 14

& Kahan, 1992; Frentz & Kelly, 1986, M iltenbeger, Parish, Rickert, & Kohr, 1989). Assumptions about the superiority of posit ive reinforcement seem to stem from structural features of the contingencies, such as delivering reinforcers rather than removing reinforcers. Additionally, respons e cost is often listed as an intrusive procedure and regulations are placed on its use without reference to context (e.g., Florida Administrative Code, Title XXIX, Chapt er 393, 2009). Further, influential authors in behavior analysis have recommended against the use of response cost (e.g., Sidman, 1989). In some such cases, exampl es are given to distinguish reinforcement and response cost in ways that are nothing more than sem antic, such as losing the privilege of driving the family car versus earning the right to drive the family car (e.g., Latham, 1995), wherein the former is di scouraged but the latter encouraged as a parenting practices. With regard to preference, few st udies have compared preference for reinforcement or response cost. Two studi es specifically compared performance and preference for reinforcement or response cost conditions. Iwata and Bailey (1974) divided a special education math class in to two groups. The reinforcement group had tokens placed into a cup for the absence of any classroom rules violations. The response cost group started the math per iod with 10 tokens, and lost tokens for instances of classroom rule violations. The 40-min math class was di vided into intervals ranging from 3-5 min in durat ion, and, following the sessions, children with at least 6 tokens were allowed to have a snack. Afte r a return to baseli ne, the groups were reversed: the group previously exposed to the reinforcement condition switched to the response cost condition, and the previous response cost group was exposed to the 14

PAGE 15

reinforcement condition. Following 10 session s, each child was given a daily choice between the two contingencies. Childrens c hoices were measured across three days. Results from the choice phase showed mixe d preference; four students consistently selected reinforcement, five students consistently chose response cost, and six students switched their choice at least onc e. Additionally, side effects such as inappropriate vocalizations were not obser ved when students were working under the response cost conditions. Conversely, Sattler et al. (1978) repor ted preference for reinforcement over response cost. In this study, children participat ed in a switch press task in a laboratory. Eighty-six children were divided into 2 groups: a reinforcement group and a response cost group. Each child completed the switch-press task for three sessions. During the first two sessions, the child wa s exposed to 44 trials of either reinforcement or response cost. Under reinforcement, the child start ed with zero pennies and earned one for every correct response. Under response cost, the ch ild started with forty pennies and lost one for every incorrect response. The first 4 trials in each session were practice trials, which exposed the child to two losses and two wins. In the third session, the child was asked to select his or her next wo rking condition and completed 20 experimental trials in that condition. Overall results showed a preference towards reinforcement, with 62 of the 80 children selecting reinforcement. Additio nally, the authors repor ted a negative side effect associated with response cost. Response times under response cost were reported as statistically longer than the response times under reinforcement. However, the mean response time was 2.48 seconds for response cost and 2.14 seconds for reinforcement, a minimally di scernable difference. 15

PAGE 16

There is reason to view the Sattler et al (1978) results cautiously. Each condition in the study was correlated with a sound when points were removed or delivered. In all cases, the response cost conditions included a buzzing sound if tokens were removed, and the reinforcement conditions included a be ll sound when tokens were earned. It is not clear what effects these correlated sounds had, if any, because a reversal was not included in this study. For ex ample, to test whether the bell and buzzer sounds had any effects on the childrens pref erence, the sound associated in each condition should have been switched. Thus, earning points under reinforcement would result in a buzzer sound and errors in response cost would have re sulted in a bell sound. Including such a comparison would have allowed for an exam ination of whether the correlated sounds influenced child preference. Given the limited and mixed re sults with regard to prefer ence for reinforcement or response cost, the purpose of this study is to evaluate preference and child behavior under reinforcement and response cost conditions. Procedural variations in Experiments I through IV attempted to evaluat e preference with an acquisition task. This type of task was selected for this investigat ion because of the ubiquity of reinforcement and response cost procedures in classr ooms and because Iwata and Bailey (1974) had already shown ambiguity of preference during behavior reduc tion procedures. Experiment I evaluated child preference for reinforcement or response cost using a computerized matching to sample task. In this study, background colors were correlated with each contingency to make the changes in the contingencies more salient. Experiment II removed the background colors, to control for any potential color bias and introduced two different but simila r tasks for the reinforcement and response 16

PAGE 17

17 cost conditions. In Experiment III, preference was evaluated using the same exact task, to eliminate any bias towards any small differences in the tasks. Experiment IV evaluated whether using number ed trials would influence contingency preference.

PAGE 18

CHAPTER 2 GENERAL METHOD Setting and Materials Sessions for most participants were conduc ted in an elementary school cafeteria during an afterschool programs homework time which provided a relatively quiet and isolated work area. Sessions for three par ticipants (Nicole, Maribel, and Elena) were conducted in their home. A laptop computer loaded with a program written in C++ specifically for the purpose of this study was used during all experiments. Session Sequence Each session included 4 components, 10 trials per component, and three choice selections. The first two components were forced exposures to both reinforcement and response cost. In the first session, the first condition presented was randomly selected. For subsequent sessions, the order of the two conditions presented was counterbalanced across sessions. During the reinforcement condition, a number line appeared with a red dot on For every correct response, the screen flashed correct, and the red dot advanced along the number li ne indicating a point gain. For every incorrect response, the screen flashed incorre ct, and the dot did not advance. During the response cost conditions, the top of the screen showed the same number line but the red dot started on 10. For every correct response, the screen flashed correct, and the red dot did not move. For every incorre ct response, the screen flashed incorrect, and the dot moved down the number line indicati ng a point loss. In both conditions, the screen also featured a pause butt on that allowed the child to take breaks if necessary. 18

PAGE 19

At the end of each component, a summary scr een appeared that disp layed the number lines and the number of points earned under each completed component. Following the forced exposures to reinfo rcement and response cost (components 1 and 2), the first choice opportunity appeared. The child was given an opportunity to select the next condition he or she would complete. The choice screen displayed the two number lines, one with the dot on and t he other with the dot on The first condition to which the child had been exposed previously appeared on the left of the screen, and the second condition appeared on the right of the screen. Following the childs selection, he or she completed the third component of 10 trials in the selected condition. Next, the second choice screen appeared. This time the child was asked to select his or her favorite condition. A gain, the number lines appeared in the same manner as the previous choice screen. Following the childs se lection, the third and final choice screen appeared. This time the number line placements were reversed from the previous two choice screens. The child was then asked to select one more working condition and then completed the fourth com ponent of the session, 10 trials under the selected condition. Prior to beginning a session, the children we re briefly instructed on how to use the program and were given a few practice tria ls with symbols not used during the sessions. None of the children needed more than 2-3 practice trials before reporting they were ready to begin a session. The children completed up to two sessions per day. At the end of each session, children were allowed to exchange points earned for items from a bin fille d with various bite-size candies and chocolates, school supplies, such as pencils and erasers, and various toys such as a small deck of cards. One-12 19

PAGE 20

points were exchangeable for 1 item from the bin, 13-23 poi nts were exchangeable for 2 items, 24-35 points were exchangeabl e for 3 items, and 36-40 points were exchangeable for 4 items. Additionally, there was a second bin exclusively for exchanging 36-40 points. This bin included items such as arts and craft items, small notebooks, larger sized candies and chocolates, and packs of stickers. Dependent Variables The primary dependent measure was the childrens responses at each of the three choice points during each session. Additional measures included the number of correct and incorrect responses, the latency to comple te each trial, and number and duration of any pauses during the session. Participant behavior throughout the sessions also was observed to capture possible side effects. Measures of intere st included vocalizations in response to correct and incorrect responses, such as sighing or saying yeah!, and offtask behavior such as putting head on table, looking away for longer than 15 seconds, tapping on the computer mous e, or swinging feet. Data Collection and Interobserver Agreement Dependent measures were recorded via the computer interface. The accuracy of the data collection by the computer pr ogram was verified each session by having observers record the dependent measures using paper and pencil. No errors in recording were found. Program debuggers were run approximat ely every 15 sessions to check for any errors in the program. No errors were reported by the debugger. Side effects data were recorded using paper and pencil by two independent observers in 42% of the sessions. Agreement was scored by comparing the number of observed responses scored by each observer in each component. Interobserver agreement was calculated by adding the number of agreement s per component and 20

PAGE 21

21 dividing that by the total number of agreements and disagreements per component. Average agreement was 99%, with a range from 97%-100%.

PAGE 22

CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENT I: RESPONSE COST VS. REINFORCEMENT: COLORED BACKGROUNDS Method Subjects Two typically developing elementary school students, Nicole, age 7, and Maribel, age 11, participated in this experiment. Procedure The task used in this study was a matching-to-sample task with six random symbols arranged in 3 random pairs. The same set of symbols was used in the reinforcement and response cost conditions. To make changes in the contingencies more salient, the reinforcem ent condition was correlated with a blue background and the response cost condition was correlat ed with a green background. The colored backgrounds were intended to serve as sc hedule-correlated stimuli only. All choice selection screens throughout the session we re set against a gray background. Each participant completed a total of f our phases. In the first phase, participants completed at least 4 sessions. In an attempt to replicate preference results, a second phase was implemented. In this phase, the participant completed another 2-3 sessions in the same comparison but with a new symbol set. It should be noted that the first two conditions presented were counterbalanced th roughout the phases. For example, if reinforcement was the first component of se ssion 1 in the first phase, then response cost would have been the first component of session 1 in the second phase. Phase 3 was a color reversal in which the background colors from the previous phases were reversed. Now, reinforcement screens were set against a green 22

PAGE 23

background and response cost screens against a blue background. The first condition in this phase was the same as the first condition in phase 1. In Phase 4, the original background colors were presented again. Specifically, the reinforcement condition was correlated wit h a blue background and the response cost condition was correlated with a green backgr ound. The first condition presented was the opposite of the first condition presented in Phase 3. Results and Discussion Figure 3-1 shows the primary dependent measure for both participants. The proportion was calculated by adding the number of choice se lections for reinforcement and response cost and dividing each total by 3. In the first phase, Nicole showed a preference for reinforcement and Maribel showed a preference for response cost. Similar preference results were obtained in the second phase. However, during the background color reversal phase, both participants preference switched. Nicoles preference switched to response cost and Maribels preference switched to reinforcement. Preference for both parti cipants switched again when the original background colors were presented again. Comments by the participants throughout t he sessions, such as Blue is my favorite color and Ill pick green because I like that color better suggested that color may have been more of an influencing variable than the reinforcement and response cost contingencies. Thus, the stimuli added to the experiment to signal changes in the contingencies seemed to have overpowered any preference for reinforcement or response cost. These results suggested that small procedural components added to reinforcement and response cost preferenc e studies, such as the bell and buzzer sounds presented in the Sattler et al. (1976) study also may have influenced child 23

PAGE 24

preference. If there was any preference at all for reinforc ement over response cost (or vice versa), that preference was outweigh ed by a seemingly modest difference between the two conditions: color. No discernable di fferences were seen between response cost and reinforcement for mean late ncy. Side effects such as sighing were observed more under reinforcement. However, reinforcement was the first component presented for each participant. For both participants, all si de effects were observed after incorrect responses in the first component of the first session. Side effects were not scored any of the other sessions. Thus, the difference does not appear to be due to the reinforcement contingency. Additionally, both participant s acquired the task quickly, scoring 100% correct within 3 sessions. To evaluate whether the number of points earned under each condition influenced preference, the number of poi nts earned prior to the first choice point was examined. Nicole had earned 4 points under reinforcement and 2 points under response cost and she selected reinforcement at the first choice point. Recall that Nicoles overall preference was for reinforcement. Maribel had earned 5 points in response cost and 3 points in reinforcement and she selected res ponse cost at the first choice point. Her overall preference was for response cost. These data suggested that, in addition to color, the childs first selection may have also been influenced by the condition that produced the larger amount of reinforcement (points). 24

PAGE 25

Nicole 0.00 0.33 0.67 1.00 012345678910111213Sessions Response Cost Reinforcement Proportion of Choice Conditions Same symbols R=Blue RC=Green R=Green RC=Blue New symbols R=Blue RC=Green R=Blue RC=Green Maribel0.00 0.33 0.67 1.00 01234567891011Sessions Reinforcement Response Cost Proportion of Choice Cond itions Same symbols R=Blue RC=Green R= Green RC=Blue R=Blue RC=Green New symbols R=Blue RC= Green Figure 3-1. Proportion of choice select ions per session for Nicole and Maribel. 25

PAGE 26

26 Table 3-1. Summary of latencies, point comparisons, and side effects. Shaded region = RC Experiment I Average Latency (sec) Points at 1st Choice Point in Phase 1 Side Effects: Total Instances of Inapp. Vocal. Nicole 6.90 4 5 7.09 2 0 Maribel 5.91 3 3 5.66 5 0

PAGE 27

CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENT II: RESPONSE COST VS. RE INFORCEMENT: DIFFERENT SYMBOL SETS Methods Subjects Two typically developing elementary sc hool students, Andy, age 11, and Elena, age 10, participated in this experiment. Procedure To eliminate the possibility of a color bias, the background colors were removed. All the screens used throughout the sessions were set against a grey background. Instead, two different symbol sets were us ed in this experiment to distinguish the contingencies. Thus, the reinforcement condition had a symbol set and the response cost condition had a different symbol set. Additionally, to make the changes in the contingencies more salient, an arrow was correlated with each condition. In the reinforcement condition, a right facing arro w appeared below the number line, and in the response cost condition a left facing a rrow appeared under the number line. These arrows also appeared along with the number lines during the choice selections. All other features of the exper iment were the same as Experiment I. Design The first two phases of this experiment we re identical to Experiment I. The third phase of the experiment used the symbols sets from the childs overall favorite contingency in the two prior phases. For both Allen and Elena, the symbols used in phase 3 were the symbols from the respons e cost condition from phase 1 and the reinforcement symbols from phase 2, respectively. In the fourth phase, the symbols sets were reversed from phase 3. 27

PAGE 28

Results and Discussion Session preference data for Allen and Elen a are shown in figure 4-1. Both participants showed a preference for response co st in the first phase. However, when new symbols sets were introduced in phase 2, overall preference results were not replicated with either participant. This finding differed from the find ings from Experiment I. However, results from phases 3 and 4 sugges ted that the participants choices were influence by the symbol sets. Both participa nts switched their choices as the symbols changed rather than according to reinforcement or response cost as exemplified in brief reversals of symbol sets. Sim ilar to Experiment 1, comm ents made by the participants during the experiment indicated a pref erence for a symbol set rather than the contingencies. Minimal side effects were noted in the fi rst component of the first session in phase 1 for Allen. Side effects observed including sighing when he responded incorrectly. No side effects were observed throughout the experiment for Elena. Allens mean latency was 3.76 sec in reinforcement and 3.48 sec in response cost. Elenas mean latency was 4.84 sec in reinforcement and 4.39 sec in response cost. Though the mean latencies for both participants were slightly shorter in re sponse cost, a closer inspection of the data indicated that the mean latencies were s horter in the preferred condition (see Table 4.2). Overall, the results fr om Experiment I and II suggest ed that differences in the latencies do not seem to be influenced by reinforcement versus response cost. Recall that results from Experiment I showed that preference may point have also been influenced by the condition that initially produced the larger am ount of reinforcers (points). However, these findi ngs were not replicated in Ex periment II. Table 4-1 shows the point totals at the first choice sele ction in each phase of the experiment. Allens 28

PAGE 29

point totals at the first choi ce point in phase 1 were the same in each condition and all subsequent phases of the experiment, thus elim inating any potential influence of point totals. Elena earned 7 points under response cost and 8 points under reinforcement in the first two components in phase 1, earning one fewer point in her favored condition. Additionally, her point totals were the same in the first two com ponents of phases 3 and 4. Elenas point totals were slightly higher in her overall favorite condition component (reinforcement) in phase 2. Overall, however, the influence of the points earned in the first two components of each phase appears to be minimal. Despite efforts to reduce any possible bi as by removing the colored backgrounds, both participants showed a preference fo r the symbols sets rather than the contingencies. Similar to the findings from Experiment I, these results suggested that variables such as differences in stim uli influenced prefer ence more than the reinforcement or response cost contingencies. Collectively, the results in the first two experiments suggest that preference for re inforcement over res ponse cost (or vice versa) may be tenuous at best. 29

PAGE 30

30 Figure 4-1. Proportion of choice select ions per session for Elena and Allen. Allen0.00 0.33 0.67 1.00 01234567891011121314Sessions Reinforcement Response Cost Proportion of Choice Cond itions RC p v R p R v RC Different symbols, grey background R V RC, 6 new, different symbols grey background12 Elena0.00 0.33 0.67 1.00 0123456789101112Sessions Reinforcement Response Cost Proportion of Choice Conditions R v RC Different symbols Grey backgrounds R v RC 6 Differnet symbols, grey backgrounds 2 RC pref R pref 1

PAGE 31

Table 4-1. Average latencies for Elena and Allen. Shaded region = RC Overall AVG Symbols #1 Symbols #2 Elena 4.84 6.17 4.60 4.39 4.11 5.70 Allen 3.76 5.07 3.66 3.48 3.66 4.43 31

PAGE 32

Table 4-2. Points at first choice poi nt for Elena and Allen. Shaded region = RC Symbols #1 Symbols #2 RC symbols v R symbols Symbols Reversal Elena 7 9 10 10 8 7 10 10 Allen 6 8 10 10 6 8 10 10 32

PAGE 33

CHAPTER 5 EXPERIMENT III: RESPONSE COST VS. REINFORCEMENT: COLOR AND SYMBOLS CONTROLLED Methods Subjects Eleven typically developing children enroll ed in afterschool care at a local elementary school participated in Experiment III. Both parti cipants from Experiment II also participated in this experiment. Ages of the children ranged from 5 to 11 years-old. Procedure To address the possible bias towards color and symbols found in Experiments I and II, the symbol sets remained the same for both conditions (thus, rate of acquisition was moot). Additionally, a grade-level math task was added. All other procedures were identical to Experiment II. Design Each participant completed four phases. The first phase was the matching to sample symbol task (with novel symbols) us ed in Experiments I and II. Sessions were carried out for at least 5 sessions or until st ability in preference was obtained by visual inspection. In phase 2, a new set of sym bols was introduced, and the participant completed at least 5 sessions, or until stabili ty in preference was obtained. The task was changed to grade level math in phase 3.The same ten math problems were used for both response cost and reinforcement. In phase 4, a new set of 10 math problems was introduced. The same math problem s were used for both response cost and reinforcement. 33

PAGE 34

Results and Discussions Overall, three patterns of preference were found; a preference for reinforcement, a preference for response cost, and indifference. Preference was classified as indifferent if the pattern of choice responding was vari able based on visual inspection of the data and if the overall proportion of choice conditions per phas e was close to .50. Eight participants showed a preference for reinforcem ent (Figure 5-1.), 2 showed indifference (Figure 5-2), and one participant showed a pref erence for response cost (Figure 5-3). For all participants, the pattern of preference indentified in the first phase was replicated throughout the four phases. There was a two month summer break between sessions for Abby in phase 4. This break did not influence preference. Similar to Experiments I and II, side e ffects were not observed. Additionally, overall latencies were shorter in the parti cipants preferred c ondition (see Table 5-1). For some participants (e.g., Leo), a somewhat larger differ ence in the latencies in the math phases was observed. This may be explained by more trials completed under the preferred condition. Specifically, becaus e the same 10 math problems were used across the 40 trials, and the response latenc ies decreased throughout the session, the preferred conditions would have had more trials with shorter latencies. Latency results from the two participants labeled indifferent showed an overall shorter latency under reinforcement for Jackie but an overall shorter latency under response cost for Maggie. Additionally, a cl oser examination of the latencies per phase shows that the conditions with shorter la tencies varied throughout the phases. For the participants who showed a prefer ence for reinforcement, an examination of point totals at the first choice point showed that point totals under response cost were higher for 4 of the 8 participants (see Table 52). Along with the results from Experiment 34

PAGE 35

II; this further demonstrated that point totals during the first exposure to reinforcement or response cost did not seem to influence overall preference. An additional measure of interest was the correspondence between the participants reported favorite condition and the two selected working conditions. Correspondence was calculated as a conditional probability; specifically, the probability of selecting reinforcement as the work ing conditions when reinforcement was the reported favorite condition, and the probability of selecting response cost as the working conditions when response cost was the report ed favorite condition. Overall, when there was a clear preference, the reported favorite condition was a fairly good indicator of child working condition selections. For the tw o participants classified as indifferent, the conditional probabilities were high for Maggie but low fo r Jackie (Figure 5-4). Thus for Jackie, the reported favorite condition was no t a good predictor of her working condition selections. Although the data indicate an overall preference for reinforcement, verbal reports by the participants suggested that the preference for re inforcement may have been influenced by yet another subtle procedural nuance. That is, the participants reported that they liked being able to k eep track of how many trials were left. The trials in each condition were not numbered in this ex periment. Thus, under the reinforcement condition, it would have been easier to keep track of trials with the red dot on the number line moving towards 10. Under response cost, the red dot started and remained at 10 if all trials were answered correctly. De spite efforts to reduce any possible bias by removing the colored backgrounds and keepi ng the symbol sets consistent between 35

PAGE 36

36 conditions, these verbal reports sugges ted that another procedural nuance may have influenced preference among the two contingencies.

PAGE 37

Ethan0.00 0.33 0.67 1.00 0 5 10 15 20 25SessionsProportion of Choice Conditions Symbols #1 Symbols #2Math #1 Math #2 Figure 5-1. Results for participants s howing a preference for reinforcement. Reinforcement Response Cost Leo0.00 0.33 0.67 1.00 0 5 10 15 20Sessions Reinforcement Response Cost Proportion of Choice Conditions S y mbols #1 Symbols #2 Math #1 Math #2 Dan0.00 0.33 0.67 1.00 0 5 10 15 20 25Sessions Reinforcement Response Cost Proportion of Choice Conditions Symbols # 1Symbols #2 Math #1 Math #2 Callie0.00 0.33 0.67 1.00 0 5 10 15 20 25Sessions Reinforcement Response Cost Proportion of Choice Conditions Symbols #1 Symbols #2 Math #1 Math #2 Abby0.00 0.33 0.67 1.0005101520253035Sessions Reinforcement Response Cost Proportion of Choice Conditions Symbols #1 Symbols #2 Math #1 Math 2 Cate0.00 0.33 0.67 1.00 0 5 10 15 20 25SessionsNina0.00 0.33 0.67 1.00 0 5 10 15 20 25SessionsMath #2 Symbols #1 Symbols #2 Math #1 Reinforcement Response Cost Proportion of Choice Conditions Reinforcement Response Cost Proportion of Choice Cond itions Symbols #1 Symbols #2 Math #1 Math #2 Allen0.00 0.33 0.67 1.00 0 5 10 15 20 25Sessions Proportion of Choice Conditions Symbols #1 Symbols #2Math #1 Math #2 37

PAGE 38

Jackie8/18 8/15 12/30 8/15 10/18 7/15 18/30 7/15 0.00 0.33 0.67 1.00 Symbols #1Symbols #2Math #1Math #2Proportion of Choice Conditions Reinforcement Response Cost Jackie0.00 0.33 0.67 1.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30Sessions Figure 5-2. Results for parti cipants showing indifference. Reinforcement Response Cost Proportion of Choice Conditions Symbols #1Symbols #2 Math #1 Math #2 Maggie0.00 0.33 0.67 1.00 0510152025303540455055Sessions Reinforcement Maggie18/39 30/54 19/39 13/21 21/39 24/54 20/39 8/210.00 0.33 0.67 1.00 Symbols #1Symbols #2 Math #1 Math #2Proportion of Choice Conditions ReinforcementSymbols #2Math #1 Math #2ortion of Choice Conditions Symbols #1Response Cost Pro p Response Cost 38

PAGE 39

Elena0.00 0.33 0.67 1.00 05Sessions1 0 Reinforcement Response Cost Proportion of Choice Conditions Symbols #1 Symbols #2 Figure 5-3. Results for participant s howing a preference for response cost. 39

PAGE 40

Table 5-1. Latency summary for a ll participants. Shaded region = RC Overall AVG Symbols #1 Symbols #2 Math #1 Math #2 Dan 7.73 4.59 3.43 6.27 8.67 7.96 4.20 3.77 8.22 11.74 Callie 4.84 4.73 3.52 5.40 5.37 5.86 4.58 4.08 7.18 5.74 Preference Leo 9.93 3.35 3.36 13.17 14.92 for 13.78 3.56 3.98 21.38 17.40 Reinforcement Allen 4.30 2.05 2.62 6.57 4.17 5.71 2.49 2.68 9.90 5.63 Ethan 7.56 5.10 6.29 11.41 7.30 9.04 5.02 5.22 11.84 8.38 Abby 6.04 4.93 6.30 6.09 7.23 7.35 6.58 7.88 7.29 7.50 Cate 9.36 7.15 6.15 12.31 11.82 10.085 8.21 6.59 13.51 12.03 Nina 5.22 4.37 3.67 6.56 6.28 5.71 5.01 3.89 7.01 6.91 Jackie 5.72 3.55 3.35 6.64 8.95 Indifferent 6.19 3.79 2.91 7.23 8.15 Mary 6.48 3.84 3.28 8.87 11.45 Anne 6.38 3.54 3.65 9.20 9.35 Preference for Elena 4.35 5.04 3.66 Response Cost 3.37 3.34 3.41 40

PAGE 41

Table 5-2. Point totals at the first c hoice point in each phase. Shaded region = RC Symbols #1 Symbols #2 Math #1 Math #2 Dan 6 2 10 10 9 8 10 8 Callie 6 6 10 10 8 6 9 10 Preference Leo 8 7 10 9 for 10 8 10 10 Reinforcement Allen 7 5 10 10 9 7 9 10 Ethan 8 6 10 10 8 9 10 10 Abby 7 4 9 9 7 3 9 9 Cate 2 4 10 9 5 3 9 10 Nina 10 6 10 10 10 10 9 10 Jackie 2 7 9 8 Indifferent 6 10 10 7 Mary 6 9 10 10 Anne 9 9 10 10 Preference for Elena 4 7 Response Cost 6 7 41

PAGE 42

Jackie Correspondence 2/8 2/4 2/4 2/4 2/6 5/8 3/6 5/120.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00R v RC R v RC #2R v RC MathR v RC Math #2Probability Selecting R when R was 'fav.' condition Selecting RC when RC was 'f'av.' condition Maggie Correspondence 12/12 16/24 6/6 10/10 15/16 13/14 12/12 5/60.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00R v RC R v RC #2R v RC MathR v RC Math #2Probability Figure 5-4. Correspondence data for Jackie and Maggie. 42

PAGE 43

CHAPTER 6 EXPERIMENT IV: RESPONSE COST VS RE INFORCEMENT: NUMBERING TRIALS Methods Subjects Four typically developing children enrolled in afterschool care at a local elementary school participated in this study. Ages of the children ranged from 7 to 10 years-old. None of the children had par ticipated in any of the previous experiments. Procedure In this experiment, the 10 trials in each component were num bered. Trial numbers appeared below the number line and to the le ft of the symbols and math problems. Additionally, for Amelia, a fifth phase was implemented. This phase was a reversal to the math problems used in phase 3. All other procedures were identical to Experiment III. Design The design was identical to Experiment III. Results and Discussion Figure 6-1 shows the results for the four participants. One participant (Cole, upper left panel) showed a preference for reinforcement, and one participant (Monica, lower left panel) initially showed a preference to wards reinforcement bu t that preference switched to indifference in the last two phas es of the experiment. The third participant (Amelia, lower right panel) showed a preferenc e towards reinforcement but switched to indifference in the fourth phase. The final pa rticipant (Kylie, upper right panel) showed a pattern of responding not observed in any of the previous experim ents. Her preference 43

PAGE 44

44 was categorized as inconclusive based on the changes in her preference across the phases of the experiment. To address Amelias change in preference at during the last 4 sessions of phase 4 of the experiment, a fifth phase was added. The purpose of the phase was to reverse the math problems used in phase 3 to exam ine whether the set of math problems was influencing preference. Amelia continued to show indifference in the reversal to phase 3 math problems. The preference variability among 3 of the 4 participant s suggests that numbering the trials may temper the apparent preference for reinforc ement obtained in Experiment III. Recall that numbering the trials was adde d to the current experiment to eliminate another procedural nuance that appeared to infl uence preference for either contingency. However, these results should be viewed cautiously, as only 4 participants have completed this experiment to date. More par ticipants are necessary in order to make further comparisons to Experiment III. Similar to the previous experiments, si de effects and differences in latencies were not obtained. Additionally, point totals at the first choice po int did not appear to influence preference. :

PAGE 45

Figure 6-1. Results for Cole Kylie, Monica, and Amelia Monica0.00 0.33 0.67 1.00 0 5101520253035Sessions Reinforcement Response Cost Proportion of Choice Conditions Symbols #1 N umbered trials Symbols #2 Numbered Trials Math #1 N umbered Trials Math #2 N umbered Trials Cole0.00 0.33 0.67 1.00 0 5 10 15 20 25Sessions Reinforcement Response Cost Proportion of Choice Conditions Symbols #2 N umbered Trials Symbols #1 N umbered trials Math #1 N umbered Trials Math #2 N umbered Trials Amelia0.00 0.33 0.67 1.00 0 5 10 15 20 25Sessions Symbols #1 Reinforcement Response Cost Pro p ortion of Choice Conditions Symbols #1 N umbered Trials Symbols #2 N umbered Trials Math #1 N umbered Trials Math #2 N umbered Trials Reversal to Math #1 problemsKylie0.00 0.33 0.67 1.00 0 5 10 15 20 25Sessions Reinforcement Response Cost Pro p ortion of Choice Conditions umbered trials symbols #2 Math #1 Math #2 N N umbered Trials N umbered trials N umbered trials 45

PAGE 46

CHAPTER 7 GENERAL DISCUSSION The present experiments ev aluated preference for reinforcement or response cost using simulated academic task and actual academic tasks. Results of Experiments I and II suggested that any preference for rein forcement or response cost must have been so slight (if present at all) that it appeared to be outweighed by idiosyncratic features of the experiment. Thus all four participants in t he first two experiments can be viewed as relatively indifferent to reinforcement versus res ponse cost. In Ex periment III, there appeared to be a general preference for reinforcement over response cost. In Experiment IV, when the trials were numbered, the participants showed mixed, indifferent, and inconclusive preferences. Desp ite the results from Experiment III, the overall results collectively suggest that a preference for reinforcement seems marginal and situational at best. Prefer ences apparently were controlled by very minor procedural nuances that were incidental to the experim ental arrangement. In Experiments I and II the participants stated t hat they preferred certain colors or symbols, respectively, and, the data supported those statements. In Experi ment III, children re ported they preferred reinforcement because it was easier to keep tr ack or see how many trials were left to complete in each component. The data fr om Experiment IV, though best viewed as preliminary, suggest that str ong overall preference for rein forcement is mitigated when the participants can easily keep tr ack of the trials in either condition. Altogether, the findings of these experiments also suggest that the bell and buzzer sounds used in the Sattler et al. (1976) study, although innocuous at first glance, may have exerted control over participants preferences 46

PAGE 47

Side effects were not observed differentially in response cost conditions but were most often seen in the first component of th e first session, regardless of condition. Furthermore, longer latencies to respond we re not associated with response cost as found in Sattler et al (1976). In all experiments, the mean latencies were minimally shorter in the childs preferred condition, which may be due to the child completing more trials in that condition. For example, if a childs overall preference was for reinforcement in a session, 30 trial latencies would be averaged for reinforcement, and 10 trial latencies from the one forced exposure to re sponse cost condition would be averaged. Given that the latencies decreased as sessi ons progressed, it makes sense that the mean latencies would be lower in the condi tion with more exposure. In fact, a retrospective review of data in the forc ed choice components (thus, controlling for exposure) showed no discernable difference in mean latency. Some potential limitations of the current exper iments should be noted. First, this investigation only examined preference for reinforcement or response cost in the context of an acquisition task. Similar experiments could be arranged to evaluate problem behavior targeted for reduction. Second, because the same symbols sets were used in Experiments III and IV, no com parison can be made of accuracy during reinforcement versus response cost. Additi onally, the participants were only given the option to select either reinforcement or response cost during choice conditions. The participants did not have an opportunity to select other options such as I dont care. An evaluation of adding such an option to t he experiment is currently ongoing. There are a number of other potentially inte resting future manipulations. Sattler et al., (1976) suggested that removing poi nts the child had earned may influence 47

PAGE 48

preference and increase the pr obability of observing side effects. Previous response cost evaluations have utilized removing poin ts earned non-contingently (e.g., Kazdin, 1973; Pace & Foreman, 1982) and points ear ned contingently (e.g., Phillips, 1968; Phillips et al., 1971). Though both have been shown to be effective, none of these studies evaluated child preferences. It is also unclear whethe r the investigators observed any side effects, as no discussion of side effects was presented. Thus, an extension of the current study would be to investigate whether removing earned points versus noncontingent points influences pref erence or side effects. Another future direction would be to manipulate different parameters, such as how many points are earned or lost (e.g., Kazdin, 1971), and assessing preference. Additionally, reinforcement and response cost are rarely implemented in isolation. Thus, future studies should include a combined rein forcement and response cost condition. Response cost procedures are ubiquitous (e.g., McSweeny, 1978); speeding, if caught, leads to a fine; failing to pay an electr ic bill may result in the electricity being discontinued; and paying a credit card bill la te may result in an increase in the annual percentage rate. Response cost procedures are commonly found in typical classrooms too. Thus, it is important for researcher s to continue to examine such punishment procedures and to evaluate any preferences and side effects in the context of naturally occurring instances of reinfo rcement or response cost. The issue of client treatm ent preference becomes especially important if behavior analysts are to consider such information w hen making treatment decisions. Outside of behavior analysis, most studies in the area of client treatment preference assess it through the use of questionnaires or verbal reports (Dwight-Johnson, Sherbourne, Liao, 48

PAGE 49

49 & Wells, 2000). Although Hanley et al. ( 1997) demonstrated a method to identify treatment preference with cons umers with limited vocal ver bal behavior, the use of client treatment preference assessments re mains largely unexplored. Thus, it is important for behavior analysts to continue to examine the best way to accurately and efficiently measure preference for consum ers with both limited and extensive verbal behavior. For example, can verbal reports of preference be verified by setting up a simple concurrent operant treatment select ion? Subsequently, how many sessions or choice points must be completed to i dentify an overall pref erence? Presumably, preference is not static, and a number of known factors (e.g., delay to reinforcement, amount of reinforcement, effort, severity of the behavior problem) influence choice. For now, at least in the context of the types of tasks used in the current experiments, it can be said that any preference for reinforcement over response cost is at best marginal.

PAGE 50

LIST OF REFERENCES Allen, K., & Harris, F. (1966). Elimination of a child's excessive scratching by training the mother in reinforcement procedures. Behaviour Research and Therapy 4 (2), 7984. doi:10.1016/00057967(66)90046-5. Azrin, N. H. & Holz, W. C. (1966). Punishment. In W.K. Honig (Ed.), Operant behavior: areas of research and application East Norwalk, CT US: Appleton-CenturyCrofts. Retrieved from PsycINFO database. Bannerman, D., Sheldon, J., Sherman, J., & Harchik, A. (1990 ). Balancing the right to habilitation with the right to personal liberties: The rights of people with developmental disabilities to eat too many doughnuts and take a nap. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 23(1), 79-89. doi:10. 1901/jaba.1990.23-79. Blampied, N., & Kahan, E. (1992). Acceptability of al ternative punishments: A community survey. Behavior Modification 16 (3), 400-413. doi:10.1177/ 01454455920163006. Boren, J., & Colman, A. ( 1970). Some experiments on reinfo rcement principles within a psychiatric ward for delinquent soldiers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 3 (1), 29-37. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1970.3-29. Brent, D., & Routh, D. (1978). Response cost and impulsive word recognition errors in reading-disabled children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology: An official publication of the International Society for Research in Child and Adolescent Psychopathology 6 (2), 211-219. doi: 10.1007/BF00919126. Broughton, S., & Lahey, B. (1978). Direct an d collateral effects of positive reinforcement, response cost, and mixed contingencies for academic performance. Journal of School Psychology 16(2), 126-136. doi:10.1016/00224405(78)90051-1. Carr, J., & Sidener, T. ( 2002). On the relation between applied behavior analysis and positive behavioral support. The Behavior Analyst 25(2), 245-253. Retrieved from PsycINFO database. Dwight-Johnson, M., Sherbourne, C., Liao, D., & Wells, K. (2000). Treatment Preferences Among Depressed Primary Care Patients. JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine 15(8), 527-534. doi:10.1046/ j.1525-1497.2000.08035.x. Errickson, E. A., Wyne, M. D. & Routh, D. K. (1973). A response-cost procedure for reduction of impulsive behavior of academic ally handicapped children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1, 350-357. 50

PAGE 51

Fisher, W., Thompson, R., Piazza, C., Crosland, K., & Gotjen, D. (199 7). On the relative reinforcing effects of choice and differential consequences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30(3), 423-438. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-423. Florida Administrative Code, Title XXIX, Chapter 393 (2009). Frentz, C., & Kelley, M. ( 1986). Parents' acceptance of reductive treatment methods: The influence of problem severity and perception of child behavior. Behavior Therapy 17(1), 75-81. doi:10. 1016/S0005-7894(86)80116-2. Hanley, G., Piazza, C., Fisher, W., Contrucci S., & Maglieri, K. (1997). Evaluation of client preference for func tion-based treatment packages. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30(3), 459-473. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-459. Hanley, G., Piazza, C., Fisher, W., & Mag lieri, K. (2005). On The Effectiveness Of And Preference For Punishment And Exti nction Components Of Function-Based Interventions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 38(1), 51-65. doi:10.1901/j aba.2005.6-04. Holt, M., & Hobbs, T. (1979). The effects of token reinforcement, feedback and response cost on standardized test performance. Behaviour Research and Therapy 17(1), 81-83. doi:10. 1016/0005-7967(79)90054-8. Iwata, B., & Bailey, J. (1974). Reward vers us cost token systems: An analysis of the effects on students and teacher. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 7 (4), 567576. doi:10.1901/jaba.1974.7-567. Kazdin, A. (1973). The effect of response co st and aversive stimulation in suppressing punished and nonpunished speech disfluencies. Behavior Therapy, 4 (1), 73-82. doi:10.1016/S00057894(73)80075-9. Kazdin, A. (1971). The effect of respons e cost in suppressing behavior in a prepsychotic retardate. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry 2 (2), 137-140. doi: 10.1016/0005-7916(71)90029-2. Latham, G. I. (1995). The Power of Positive Parenting: A Wonderful Way to Raise Children. Logan, UT: P&T ink. McSweeny, A. (1978). Effects of response cost on the b ehavior of a million persons: Charging for directory a ssistance in Cincinnati. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 11(1), 47-51. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1978.11-47. Michael, J. (1993). Concepts and principles of behavior analysis Kalamazoo: Society for the advancement of behavior analysis. 51

PAGE 52

52 Miltenberger, R. G., Parrish, J. M., Rickert, V., & Kohr, M. (1989). Assessing treatment acceptability with consumers of outpatient child behavior management services. Child and Family Behavior Therapy 11, 35-44. doi:10.1300/J019v11n01_03. Pace, D. M., & Forman, S. G. (1982). Variables related to the effectiveness of response cost. Psychology in the Sc hools, 19, 365-370. doi:10.1002/15206807(198207)19:3<365::AID-PIT S2310190317>3.0.CO;2-T. Panek, D. M. (1970). Word association le arning by chronic schizophrenics on a token economy ward under conditions of reward and punishment. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 26, 163-167. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(197004)26: 2<163::AIDJCLP2270260208>3.0.CO;2-5. Phillips, E. L. ( 1968). Achievement place: Token re inforcement procedures in a homestyle rehabilitation setting for "pre-delinquent boys. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 213-223. doi:10.1901/jaba.1968.1-213. Phillips, E. L., Phillips, E. A ., Fixsen, D. L., & Wolf, M. M. (1971). Achievement place: Modification of the behaviors of predelinquent boys within a token economy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysi s, 4, 45-59. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1971.4-45. Piazza, C. C., & Fisher, W. (1991). A faded bedt ime with response cost protocol for treatment of multiple sleep problems in children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 129-140. doi :10.1901/j aba.1991.24-129. Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., Roane, H. S., & Hilker, K. (1999). Predicting and enhancing the effectiveness of reinforcers and punishers In A. C. Repp & R. H. Horner (Eds.), Functional analysis of pr oblem behavior (pp. 55-77). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Sattler, H. E., Betz, M. A., & Zellner, R. D. (1978). Childrens preference for response cost or positive reinforcem ent as working conditions. The Journal of Psychology, 100, 71-75. Retrieved from PsycINFO database. Sidman, M. (1989). Coercion and its fallout. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative, Inc. Retrieved from PsycINFO database. Sprute, K. A., Williams, R. L ., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1990). Effects of a group response cost contingency procedure on the rate of classroom interruptions with emotionally disturbed secondary students. Child and Fa mily Behavior Therapy, 12, 1-12. doi:10.1300/J019v12n02_01.

PAGE 53

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Cristina Whitehouse graduated from Rollins College in 1995 with a Bachelor of .Arts. in Psychology. Cristina became inte rested in Behavior Analysis while at Rollins and completed her senior thesis on the Pe rsonalized System of Instruction with her undergraduate advisor, Dr. Maria Ruiz. Upon graduation, Cristina began working at Threshold Inc. providing early intervention behavioral services for children with autism and developmental delays. Cristina then s pent two years working as a Primary Therapist providing behavioral services at Q uest Kids. These opportunities lead to work at Community Services for Autistic Adults and Children in Rockville, MD where she was responsible for in-home behaviora l programming and staff training. After moving back to Florida, Cristi na spent 3 years working as a Behavior Analyst providing behavioral services to foster children and teaching foster parents behavioral parenting skills under the supervi sion of Dr. Timothy Vollmer. This opportunity motivated Cristinas to pur sue a graduate degree in applied behavior analysis, and she began her graduate studies at the University of Florida in 2004. Since beginning graduate school, Cristi na has had the opportunity to conduct research in the areas of assessment of preference and large scale program evaluation. Cristina will continue her graduate studies at the University of Florida to obtain her doctoral degree. 53