A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 143

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 143
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 209
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 994
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3134
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 574
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 488
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

The effects of fixed-time and contingent schedules of negative reinforcement on compliance and aberrant behavior. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • Prior research indicates that fixed-time (FT) schedules of reinforcement can still promote appropriate behaviors when used with differential reinforcement (DRA), but denser schedules tend to disrupt this process more than lean schedules.
  • The study focused on whether FT schedules of negative reinforcement would yield similar outcomes, particularly under conditions that encouraged escape from tasks as a means of maintaining problem behavior.
  • Results demonstrated that lean FT schedules did not hinder compliance, while dense FT schedules significantly interfered with the intended behavioral improvements.

Article Abstract

Prior research has suggested that fixed-time (FT) schedules of reinforcement do not necessarily preclude the acquisition of appropriate behavior (e.g., mands) when combined with differential reinforcement (DRA). These studies also note that dense FT schedules are more likely to interfere with DRA packages than lean FT schedules. In the current investigation, we examined whether similar findings would occur with FT schedules of negative reinforcement. Schedule analyses were conducted with two participants following functional analyses that identified escape from task demands as the maintaining variable for problem behavior. Differential negative reinforcement of alternative behavior (DNRA) was implemented first to establish behavioral control (decreased problem behavior and increased compliance). Breaks (negative reinforcement) were then concurrently delivered on a FT basis under either dense (at a greater rate than that obtained during DNRA alone) or lean (at a lower rate than that obtained during DNRA) reinforcement schedules. In general, results showed that FT escape did not preclude compliance when the FT schedule was lean, but treatment gains were significantly disrupted when dense FT schedules were superimposed.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2004.01.004DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

negative reinforcement
16
schedules negative
8
dense schedules
8
problem behavior
8
rate dnra
8
schedules
7
reinforcement
7
behavior
5
effects fixed-time
4
fixed-time contingent
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!