1980, 133, NUMBER 4 (WINTER 1980) UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME. be viewed as a response and defined a priori by

Transcription

1 JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 1980, 133, NUMBER 4 (WINTER 1980) RESPONSE DEPRIVATION AND REINFORCEMENT IN APPLIED SETTINGS: A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS EDWARD A. KONARSKI, JR., MOSES R. JOHNSON, CHARLES R. CROWELL, AND THOMAS L. WHITMAN UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME First-grde children engged in setwork behviors under reinforcement schedules estblished ccording to the Premck Principle nd the Response Deprivtion Hypothesis. Across two experiments, schedules were presented to the children in counterblnced fshion which fulfilled the conditions of one, both, or neither of the hypotheses. Durtion of on-tsk mth nd coloring in Experiment 1 nd on-tsk mth nd reding in Experiment 2 were the dependent vribles. A modified ABA-type withdrwl design, including condition to control for the noncontingent effects of schedule, indicted n increse of on-tsk instrumentl responding only in those schedules where the condition of response deprivtion ws present but not where it ws bsent, regrdless of the probbility differentil between the instrumentl nd contingent responses. These results were consistent with lbortory findings supporting the necessity of response deprivtion for producing the reinforcement effect in single response, instrumentl schedules. However, the results of the control procedure were equivocl so the contribution of the contingent reltionship between the responses to the increses in instrumentl behvior could not be determined. Nevertheless, these results provided tenttive support for the Response Deprivtion Hypothesis s new pproch to estblishing reinforcement schedules while indicting the need for further reserch in this re. The possible dvntges of this technique for pplied use were identified nd discussed. DESCRIPTORS: Premck Principle, Response Deprivtion Hypothesis, cdemic behvior, reinforcement, contingencies The trditionl pproch to reinforcement tken by pplied reserchers hs been prgmtic one guided by the Empiricl Lw of Effect (Skinner, 1935; Spence, 1956). This lw lbels stimulus s reinforcer if its presenttion fter response produces n increse in tht behvior. An lterntive to this empiricl method of defining nd selecting reinforcing events ws provided by Premck in Rther thn relying upon post hoc observtions of effectiveness, Premck hypothesized tht reinforcing event could The uthors cknowledge the school principl, Mr. Dvid Court, nd the clssroom techer, Ms. Mrilyn Portolese, for their coopertion throughout this study. We lso thnk our collegues Jim Allison, Bill Timberlke, nd Don Ber for their helpful comments on the mnuscript. Reprint requests my be sent to Ed Konrski, P.O. Box 2968, Deprtment of Psychology, The University of Albm, University, Albm be viewed s response nd defined priori by focusing upon its reltion to the behvior to be incresed (i.e., the instrumentl response) in free-performnce (bseline) sitution. The reltive probbilities of these responses were believed to be the key to the occurrence of reinforcement effect. Tht is, within prticulr schedule, the reinforcement effect will be shown only if the behvior with the higher free-performnce probbility serves s the contingent response nd the lower-probbility behvior s the instrumentl response (Premck, 1959). Subsequently, the outcome of number of experimentl studies hve ppered consistent with this Probbility Differentil Hypothesis, or so-clled Premck Principle (e.g., Premck, 1963, 1965, 1971; Scheffer, Hnn, & Russo, 1966; Wsik, 1969). Encourged by these findings, nd perhps by the simplicity nd economy 595

2 596 5EDWARD A. KONARSKI et l. of the hypothesis, pplied reserchers hve successfully utilized the concept of probbility differentil to select reinforcers for use in clinicl progrms (e.g., Ayllon & Azrin, 1968; Btemn, 1975; Dnher, 1974; Hrtje, 1973; Homme, debc, Devine, Steinhorst, & Rickert, 1963; Mitchell & Stffelmyr, 1973; Wsik, 1970). Unfortuntely, pplied behvior nlysts virtully ignored nother importnt vrible noted by Premck (1965) s relevnt to understnding instrumentl performnce. This vrible is the suppression of contingent responding reltive to its bseline level tht inevitbly occurs in schedules tht produce reinforcement effect. The importnce of such suppression of contingent responding in reinforcement schedules ws documented in the lbortory by Eisenberger, Krpmn, nd Trttner (1967). These reserchers provided strong evidence tht this vrible ws the necessry nd sufficient condition for reinforcement. This ws done by demonstrting tht the reinforcement effect could be produced even when lower-probbility behvior served s the contingent response if the schedule requirements produced suppression of contingent responding reltive to its bseline level. This finding, which ws in direct conflict with the generl postultion of the Premck Principle concerning the necessity of n pproprite probbility differentil, hs been supported by the results of number of recent lbortory investigtions (Allison, Miller, & Wozny, 1979; Allison & Timberlke, 1974; Bernstein, 1974; Heth & Wrren, 1978; Timberlke & Allison, 1974). On the bsis of such findings, Timberlke nd Allison (1974) developed the Response Deprivtion Hypothesis of instrumentl performnce. This conception resembles the Premck Principle in tht the freely occurring levels of instrumentl nd contingent responding re importnt determinnts of schedule effectiveness. However, in contrst to the Premck Principle, the Response Deprivtion Hypothesis stipultes tht the reinforcement effect will occur only when the terms of the schedule result in reduced ccess to the contingent response reltive to its bseline level if the subject performs the instrumentl response t or below its bseline level (Timberlke & Allison, 1974). Thus, effective contingencies require the subject to increse instrumentl responding in order to llevite the "deprivtion" of the contingent response produced by the schedule requirements. Mthemticlly, the condition of response deprivtion is sid to exist in contingency if I/C > Oi/Oc, where I nd C re the terms of the instrumentl nd contingent responses in the schedule condition while Oi nd O represent their respective freely occurring levels. In essence, response deprivtion is present in schedule only when the rtio of the instrumentl response to the contingent response is greter in the contingency thn in the opernt bseline. It is importnt to note tht this condition is determined in n ntecedent fshion through the judicious selection of schedule requirements fter exmining the free-performnce levels of the instrumentl nd contingent responses. The reltionship between the Probbility Differentil nd Response Deprivtion Hypotheses nd the vrious predictions of instrumentl performnce they mke re redily seen by wy of exmple. Assume tht two behviors, A nd B, hve pired-opernt bseline (where both responses re continuously nd freely vilble) levels of 10 nd 5 units, respectively. Tble 1 presents three illustrtive schedules bsed on these behviors. According to the Premck Principle, Schedules 1 nd 2, but not 3, will produce the reinforcement effect becuse only in those schedules does the higher-probbility behvior serve s the contingent response. On the other hnd, the Response Deprivtion Hypothesis predicts the reinforcement effect whenever the condition of response deprivtion (I/C > Oi/O0) is produced by the schedule requirements. In the exmple, response deprivtion is present only in Schedules 2 nd 3 (5/1 > 5/10 nd 5/1 > 10/5). This mens tht in these schedules, con-

3 RESPONSE DEPRIVATION 597 Tble 1 Smple Schedule Requirements Pired-Opernt Levels: Behvior A = 10, High Probbility Behvior (HPB) Behvior B = 5, Low Probbility Behvior (LPB) Instrumentl Contingent Theory Response Response Predicting (I) (C) I/C 1/ c Reinforcement B/A Ob/o Schedule 1 B A 1/5 <5/10 Premck Principle (LPB) (HPB).2.5 B/A 0b/0 Premck Principle, Schedule 2 B A 5/1 >5/10 Response Deprivtion Hypothesis (LPB) (HPB) 5.5 A/B O/Ob Schedule 3 A B 5/1 >10/5 Response Deprivtion Hypothesis (HPB) (LPB) 5 2 tinued performnce of the instrumentl response t its bseline level would deprive the subject of ccess to n opernt level of the contingent response. Consequently, incresed instrumentl performnce is expected in order to reduce tht deprivtion. On the contrry, in Schedule 1, the subject would still be provided ccess to the contingent response t its ccustomed level by continuing to perform the instrumentl response t its bseline level. Hence, no increse of instrumentl performnce is predicted by the Response Deprivtion Hypothesis. So lthough the two hypotheses mke convergent predictions concerning the effects of Schedule 2, they clerly conflict regrding Schedules 1 nd 3. Tht is, ccording to the Response Deprivtion Hypothesis higher-probbility contingent response my not produce reinforcement effect (e.g., Schedule 1) wheres lower-probbility contingent response could (e.g., smple Schedule 3), depending on the presence of response deprivtion. Thus, ccording to the Response Deprivtion Hypothesis, ny response lredy in the behviorl repertoire of the subject is potentil reinforcer given the presence of response deprivtion in the schedule. This hypothesis hs significnt implictions for the behvior modifier in tht it would provide new nd rich source of reinforcers beyond those trditionlly employed if its pplied vlidity is demonstrted. In this study, the vlidity of the Response Deprivtion Hypothesis ws exmined in the context of n eductionl setting. Specificlly, the impliction tht under pproprite conditions ny response, regrdless of its reltive probbility, cn serve s reinforcer for nother response ws tested. This ws ccomplished by ssessing the convergent nd divergent predictions of the Premck Principle nd Response Deprivtion Hypothesis noted bove. Although such comprisons of models re being performed in bsic lerning lbortories (e.g., Allison et l., 1979; Timberlke & Wozny, 1979), similr tests in pplied settings hve not yet been conducted. Consistent with lbortory findings, it ws hypothesized tht the condition of response deprivtion, but not probbility differentil, would be required to estblish effective reinforcement schedules. EXPERIMENT 1 Experiment 1 ssessed the prediction tht lower-probbility behvior cn ct s reinforcer for higher-probbility behvior when the conditions of response deprivtion re pres-

4 598 58EDWARD A. KONARSKI et. ent but not when they re bsent (cf. Allison & Timberlke, 1974). METHOD Prticipnts nd Setting Two first-grde children, Dve nd Fifi, enrolled in n inner-city, low SES neighborhood public school, prticipted in the study. The techer described them s being of verge intellect nd s presenting no prticulr behviorl problems. The experiment ws conducted t smll tble in the bck of the children's regulr clssroom. Tsks nd Mterils Typicl clssroom coloring nd mth tsks were selected s trget behviors. Mth responses consisted of mtching numbers, filling in missing numbers, nd working one-digit ddition nd subtrction problems. Two books from the Whitmn coloring series were used for the coloring tsk. Pencils, cryons, nd other necessry cdemic mterils were supplied by the clssroom techer. Definitions, Recording, nd Relibility Response durtion ws the unit of mesurement in this study in order to be consistent with Premck's (1965, p. 134) requirement for between-response comprison. Mth nd coloring were defined in the following mnner: On-tsk mth: Child in set t work tble, gze directed towrd work mterils obtined from mth try nd/or mnipulting these mterils. Includes counting on fingers or counter. On-tsk coloring: Child in set t work tble, gze directed towrd coloring book or cryons obtined from coloring try nd/or mnipulting books or cryons. During the sessions, the experimenter recorded the length of time child spent on ech tsk. A stopwtch rn continuously throughout the 20- min session. The experimenter recorded ech contct with tsk by noting the time of the onset nd offset of ech contct. If the child ws not in contct with one of the tsks, the experimenter recorded nothing. Seven relibility checks were conducted for ech child with t lest one check per experimentl condition. Relibility for ech of the ontsk behviors ws ssessed by one of two rters ( grdute student in psychology or the clssroom techer) who observed the session long with the experimenter. Relibility of recording on the totl dily durtion of ech on-tsk behvior ws clculted by tking the totl durtion per session of ech tsk in seconds, for the rter nd the experimenter, dividing the smller number by the lrger, nd multiplying by 100 (Kelly, 1977). On this mesure, mth nd coloring both verged 98% greement with rnges of 97 to 100% nd 91 to 99%, respectively. In ddition to relibility on the totl durtion of responding, finer ssessment of recording ws completed. For purposes of relibility only, the session ws divided into 10-sec intervls, nd the dt of the experimenter nd the rter were compred to note greement of occurrence in ech of those intervls. Relibility ws clculted by dividing the number of greements by the number of greements plus disgreements nd multiplying by 100 (Kelly, 1977). On this mesure, mth verged 98% greement with rnge of 96 to 100%. Coloring verged 99% with rnge of 98 to 100%. Design The two schedules evluted in this experiment, RD (response deprivtion present) nd RD (no response deprivtion present), were presented to the children in counterblnced fshion. Before ech of the schedule conditions, the children were presented their two tsks in pired-opernt bseline (BL) to evlute their freely occurring levels. Following ech RD nd RD schedule, mtched-control condition (MC) ws implemented to ssess the effects upon instrumentl responding of restricted ccess to the contingent behvior in the bsence of contingent reltionship between the responses (Bernstein, 1974; Bernstein & Ebbeson, 1978). In

5 RESPONSE DEPRIVATION 599 summry, Dve's order of conditions ws BL RD, MC, BL, RD, MC while Fifi's ws BL, RD, MC, BL, RD, MC. Procedures The sessions were conducted erly in the fternoon ech dy s the school schedule permitted. The experimenter brought ech child individully to the work tble t the bck of the clssroom where ll the tsk mterils were kept in lbeled trys. After being seted, the instructions were red by the experimenter who then remined t the work tble nd recorded the behvior of the child. The experimenter did not interct with the child once the session begn nd ignored ny interction initited by the child. Bseline (BL). In this condition, the mth nd coloring tsks were freely nd continuously vilble to the children. The trys contining the tsks were esily reched by the children nd were lterntely positioned on the tble ech dy to control for ny possible left-right preferences. Before ech session, the experimenter mde the following sttement to the children: "Hi, Nme. Tody you re going to work t this tble. Sty in the chir until I tell you tht you my get up. On the tble re two trys, one with mth setwork nd one with coloring work. You cn work on whichever one you wish, the mth or the coloring for s long s you wnt, it's up to you. Do whtever you wnt. The only rules re tht you sty in your set, you must not tlk to me, keep ll ppers in their own try, nd work on only one tsk t time." (Adpted from Butcher & Osborne, Note 1) These were the only instructions. No intrsession instructions or feedbck were given to the children t ny time. After 20 min elpsed, the children were told to return to their set nd were thnked for their coopertion. Schedule conditions (RD, RD). During these conditions, ech child ws brought to the tble s during bseline nd the following sttement ws red: "Hi, Nme. Tody you re to work t this tble. Sty in the chir until I tell you tht you my get up. Remember, the rules re tht you cn only work on one tsk t time, you must keep the mterils in their own try, nd you must not tlk to me." Initilly, only the instrumentl response mterils were on the tble in front of the child. When the child completed the instrumentl requirement of his or her schedule, the mterils of the contingent response were plced on the tble for the mount of time indicted by the schedule (C). No other interction occurred, nd ny ttempts by the child to interct with the experimenter were ignored. The instrumentl response mterils lso remined vilble to the child; however, instrumentl responding t this time did not count towrd stisfying the instrumentl requirement (I). Instrumentl responding ws effective in completing the schedule only when the contingent response ws unvilble. When the llotted time for the contingent response expired, regrdless of the mount of time the child ctully engged in it, these mterils were removed nd not reintroduced until the child hd once gin fulfilled the instrumentl requirement. The schedule requirements were not communicted to the children. The first step in estblishing the reinforcement schedules ws the determintion of the higher- nd lower-probbility behviors by exmining the pired-opernt levels of coloring nd mth. Coloring ws shown to be the higherprobbility behvior nd served s the instrumentl response while mth, the lower-probbility behvior, served s the contingent response. The second step ws estblishing the Oi/Oc rtio for ech of the children bsed on their respective verge dily durtion of mth nd coloring in bseline. Finlly, the I/C rtios were determined so tht I/C > Oi/O ccurtely described the schedule in the RD conditions nd

6 600 60EDWARD A. KONARSKI et l. Tble 2 *Schedule Requirements-Experiment 1 BL RD MC BL RD MC Dve oi/oc I/C C* Oj/OC I/C C** # of sessions Color/mth 12.1/7.5 5/ /6.1 1/4 4 rtio BL RD MC BL RD MC Pifi Oi/Qc I/C C i/ c I/C C # of sessions Color/mth 11.7/2.1 1/ /3.6 6/1 1 rtio *Dt reported in minutes of behvior. * *Contingent Response presented for this durtion t rndomly determined times throughout the session bsed on number of times I ws completed in the previous schedule condition. I/C < Qi/Oc held true in the RD schedules. The exct I nd C vlues employed were selected ccording to no set formul but were estblished so tht the children could complete the contingency severl times within session nd hve resonble mount of time to work on ech tsk. The children's schedule requirements were not identicl becuse of differences in the opernt levels of the behviors tht produced different Oi/Oc rtios. Ech set of schedule terms ws bsed on the verge dily durtion of the behviors in the bseline prior to tht prticulr schedule. The ctul schedule terms for ech of the children cn be seen in Tble 2. Mtched control (MC). The procedures of this condition were similr to those employed in the RD nd RD conditions. The difference ws tht the contingent response ws presented t rndomly determined times, independent of the child's instrumentl responding. However, it ws vilble for the sme mount of time nd presented the sme number of times s in the preceding schedule condition. It ws expected tht if schedule effectiveness ws dependent upon contingent reltion between the responses, then ny incresed instrumentl performnce in the immeditely preceding phse should decline under these conditions (Bernstein, 1974). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The dily performnce of the children on both tsks is presented in Figure 1, nd their men levels of responding cross ll conditions re depicted in Tble 3. These dt indicte tht both children demonstrted n increse of coloring over their bseline levels when the RD schedule ws in effect nd little or no increse when the RD schedule ws present. This suggests tht mth cted s reinforcer for coloring when the conditions of response deprivtion were present even though it ws clerly shown in the bseline to be lower-probbility response. Therefore, consistent with the predictions of the Response Deprivtion Hypothesis (Timberlke & Allison, 1974) nd contrry to the Premck Principle (Premck, 1959, 1965, 1971), it does not pper necessry to hve higher-probbility behvior serve s the contingent response to produce reinforcement effect. This finding suggests tht the presence of response deprivtion lone in schedule is sufficient to influence instrumentl responding. Although the increses of instrumentl responding pper reltively wek by conventionl clinicl stndrds (Hersen & Brlow, 1976), the dt must be evluted reltive to the schedule requirements. Tht is, the schedule requirements interct with the number of times child

7 RESPONSE DEPRIVATION 601 ev DRVE BL AD IN& INSTRUMENTAL RESPONSE (mro): COLORING A CONTINGENT RESPONSE (LP01 MITH - - MC 8L nd MC w c C m ft s U Q CU Wo I&1. z _ w ft 0 ft F I F I BL MC BL RD MC c 40 ft =0 sjon um to 07 z _, EL 4.- son SESSIONS Fig. 1. Results of the schedule contingencies for Dve nd Fifi. The top figure depicts the mount of instrumentl nd contingent responding, in minutes, shown by Dve in the Bseline (BL), Response Deprivtion (RD), no Response Deprivtion (RD), nd Mtched-Control (MC) conditions. Coloring ws the higherprobbility behvior (HPB) nd served s the instrumentl response. The lower-probbility behvior (LPB) ws mth nd it served s the contingent response. The lower figure depicts the sme informtion for Fifi.

8 EDWARD A. KONARSKI et l. Tble 3 Dily Men Durtion of Responding Per Condition-Experiment I Dve Color (I) Mth (C) Fifi Color (I) Mth (C) BL BL RD RD MC MC BL BL RD RD MC MC *Dt in minutes. could possibly complete both instrumentl nd contingent requirements within the 20-min session to limit the potentil mount of instrumentl responding. It should lso be noted tht becuse in this experiment the higher-probbility behvior served s the instrumentl response there ws less opportunity to demonstrte lrge increse in behvior thn is the cse when lower-probbility behvior is the instrumentl response. Regrdless, it does pper there were more relible increses of behvior in RD reltive to RD schedules. A decrement of instrumentl responding in the MC conditions ws expected only following the RD conditions. However, the findings in these phses re somewht problemticl for only Fifi exhibited the expected reduction of previously incresed instrumentl behvior. The fct tht Dve's incresed coloring behvior ws mintined in the MC condition my suggest tht deprivtion lone (without contingency) my be sufficient to chieve reinforcement effect. It my be tht true instrumentl conditioning did not underlie the reinforcement effect; rther, the removl of the contingent response lone my hve produced this result in the RD conditions (Bernstein & Ebbeson, 1978; Timberlke, 1979). However, certin methodologicl limittions in the use of the MC condition in the present study re relevnt to this issue. First, it ws not counterblnced with respect to the RD conditions for positionl or crry-over effects in this design. An MC condition before RD would be required for this purpose. Secondly, in the present use of the MC condition, some indvertent pirings my hve continued to occur on rndom bsis becuse the contingent response continued to be presented nd removed in close temporl sequence to the instrumentl response. This possibility is especilly likely becuse the higher-probbility behvior served s the instrumentl response thereby incresing the chnces for "superstitious" pirings. Finlly, becuse the time course of the expected decrementl effects of the MC condition is unknown, it is possible tht longer durtion of this condition thn ws presently employed would be desirble, especilly in view of ny possible crry-over nd/or superstitious reinforcement effects. All these fctors suggest tht the outcomes of the MC conditions, both supportive nd nonsupportive of the Response Deprivtion Hypothesis, should be viewed with cution s preliminry efforts. In summry, the results of this experiment suggest the sufficiency of the stte of response deprivtion to produce reinforcement effects in n cdemic context, thereby systemticlly replicting bsic lbortory reserch findings (Allison et l., 1979; Allison & Timberlke, 1974, 1975; Bernstein, 1974; Eisenberger et l., 1967; Heth & Wrren, 1978; Timberlke, 1979; Timberlke & Allison, 1974; Timberlke & Wozny, 1979). However, becuse of the tenttive nture of the effects of the MC conditions, it cnnot be determined how much of the increses in the instrumentl responding were due to the contingent reltionship between the responses.

9 RESPONSE DEPRIVATION 603 EXPERIMENT 2 Experiment 2 tested the prediction tht higher-probbility contingent response would increse instrumentl performnce only when response deprivtion ws present in the schedule (Timberlke & Allison, 1974). METHOD Prticipnts nd Setting Two children, Johnny nd Sm, from the sme clssroom s Dve nd Fifi, prticipted in this experiment. Like the children in Experiment 1, they were described by the techer s verge intellectully nd presenting no behvior problem in the clssroom. The setting ws identicl to tht of Experiment 1. Tsks nd Mterils Mth ws gin used s one tsk, but reding ws substituted for coloring s the second tsk so the children could work on two cdemic tsks. Reding involved such responses s mtching letters, writing letters, nd reding books. With this exception, ll mterils used in Experiment 1 were lso used in Experiment 2. Definitions, Recording, nd Relibility The procedures nd response definitions were identicl with Experiment 1. On-tsk reding ws defined s follows: On-tsk reding: Child in set t work tble, gze directed towrd work mterils obtined from reding try nd/or mnipulting these mterils. There were 12 relibility checks on Johnny's dt nd 10 on Sm's. For both children there ws t lest one relibility check per experimentl condition. Agreement on totl dily durtion of responding verged 989% for both mth nd reding with rnge of 93 to 100% for mth nd 91 to 100% for reding. On the intervl-by-intervl relibility nlysis, mth nd reding verged 98% greement with rnges of 94 to 100% nd 96 to 100%, respectively. Design nd Procedures The sme bsic design s in Experiment 1 ws used nd gin there were BL, RD, RD, nd MC conditions. However, one extr condition ws dded for ech child. For Sm this condition ws reinsttement of the RD schedule nd for Johnny reinsttement of bseline (BL). All procedures were conducted nd schedules determined in the sme fshion s Experiment 1, with the exception tht the lower-probbility behvior, reding, served s the instrumentl response nd the higher-probbility behvior, mth, s the contingent response. All informtion relevnt to Experiment 2 is presented in Tble 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 2 depicts the dily behvior of Johnny nd Sm cross ll phses of the experiment nd Tble 5 contins their men levels of responding. It cn be redily observed tht both children demonstrted relible increses of instrumentl responding in the RD conditions. For Sm this effect ws replicted by reinstting the RD condition.second time. The chnges in behvior were much lrger thn in Experiment 1 becuse the lower-probbility behvior served s the instrumentl response in this experiment. These findings re consistent with the predictions of both the Premck Principle nd the Response Deprivtion Hypothesis. However, neither child showed significnt increses of instrumentl responding in the RD schedules, suggesting tht response deprivtion ws necessry feture of effective reinforcement schedules where the higher-probbility behvior serves s the contingent response. Furthermore, these dt imply tht probbility differentil lone is n insufficient condition for reinforcement becuse by itself this fctor did not result in the reinforcement effect. This ltter outcome replictes n erlier finding of Premck (1965).

10 EDWARD A. KONARSKI et l. Tble 4 *Schedule Requirements-Experiment 2 BL RD MC BL RD MC RD Sm O1/Oc I/C I* 0i/0C l/c CD* I/C # of sessions red/mth 2.9/15.4.5/ /16.3 3/2 2 3/2 rtio BL RD MC BL RD MC BL Johnny I1/ C l/c C O1/Qc I/C C I/dc # of sessions red/mth 9.5/9.7 3/1 1 5/14.7 1/ /10.8 rtio *Dt reported in minutes of behvior. #*Contingent Response presented for this durtion t rndomly determined times throughout the session bsed on number of times I ws completed in the previous schedule condition. The bove conclusions re more strongly supported by the dt of Sm becuse he exhibited cler probbility differentil between his reding nd mth behvior during bseline. The bseline dt of Johnny, on the other hnd, indicted no consistent probbility differentil between mth nd reding nd therefore my not hve provided fir test of the Premck Principle. Specificlly, ccording to the Premck Principle the reinforcement effect would be expected in neither the RD nor the RD condition if there ws no probbility differentil between responses. However, this prediction ws only supported in the RD condition becuse the reinforcement effect ws pprent in the RD schedule, thereby lso rguing ginst the ide tht probbility differentil is necessry condition for reinforcement. In sum, the increses in instrumentl responding of both children cn be better interpreted by the presence/bsence of response deprivtion in the schedules thn from the existence of probbility differentil between the responses. The results of MC conditions following the RD schedules in this experiment gin produced inconsistent findings. Sm's dt gve evidence for the necessity of the contingent reltionship between the instrumentl nd contingent responses becuse return to bseline levels of instrumentl responding ws evident. However, Johnny's instrumentl responding in the MC condition showed no decrese, result which ws observed in Experiment 1 with Dve nd hs lso been found in other studies (Bernstein, 1974; Osborne, 1969). Due to these equivocl findings, more reserch is needed to determine Tble 5 Dily Men Durtion of Responding Per Condition-Experiment 2 Sm Red (I) Mth (C) Johnny Red (I) Mth (C) BL * BL RD RD MC MC BL BL RD RD MC MC RD BL *Dt in minutes.

11 RESPONSE DEPRIVATION 60S ft SRM BL INSTRUMENTAL RESPONSE (LPS)s REROING h.& CONTINGENT RESPONSE (m"ss MATM MC BL RD MC no w C C ft ARP-" v B. - _ C. _ȯ ft JOHNNY BL V gm x co CA P.- I - z _. z SESSIONS Fig. 2. Results of the schedule contingencies for Sm nd Johnny. The top figure depicts the mount of instrumentl nd contingent responding, in minutes, shown by Sm in the Bseline (BL), Response Deprivtion (RD), no Response Deprivtion (RD), nd Mtched-Control (MC) conditions. Reding ws the lowerprobbility behvior (LPB) nd served s the instrumentl response while mth ws the higher-probbility behvior (HPB) nd served s the contingent response. The lower figure depicts the sme informtion for Johnny.

12 606 60EDWARD A. KONARSKI et l. both the contingent nd noncontingent effects of instrumentl schedules. Further investigtion nd discussion of this issue hs been presented by Timberlke (1979). GENERAL DISCUSSION The results of both experiments clerly suggest tht response deprivtion ws sufficient (Experiment 1) nd necessry (Experiment 2) condition for producing the reinforcement effect. This conclusion ws supported by the finding tht the reinforcement effect ws evident only when response deprivtion ws present in the schedule, but not when it ws bsent, regrdless of the probbility differentil between the responses. These results support the predictions of the Response Deprivtion Hypothesis while being contrry to the notion of probbility differentil s the criticl condition for reinforcement. It ppered tht only when the schedule requirements interfered with the children's freeperformnce levels of responding did n increse of instrumentl responding occur. The importnce of the Response Deprivtion Hypothesis in this regrd is tht it specifies priori tht point t which this interference (response deprivtion) will be present in schedule (i.e., I/C > Oi/O0). An issue tht remins tenttive is the contribution of the contingent reltionship between the responses to the increses of instrumentl performnce. The results of the MC condition did not llow the conclusion tht the children incresed instrumentl responding becuse it gined ccess to the contingent response. Rther, it my hve been tht this increse ws consequence of the unvilbility of the contingent response for periods of time in the schedule conditions, perhps merely reflecting substitution of the instrumentl response s n lterntive to contingent responding (Bernstein, 1974; Bernstein & Ebbeson, 1978). A response substitution mechnism such s this hs been suggested by Rchlin nd Burkhrd (1978) to be n importnt vrible underlying mny reinforcement effects nd deserves closer investigtion. However, s noted by Timberlke (1979), lthough the noncontingent effects of schedule my contribute to increses of instrumentl responding, there exists mple evidence tht importnt contributions re lso mde by its contingent spects. The importnce of response deprivtion in the present findings lso suggests n lterntive explntion of the results of previous lbortory (Premck, 1963; 1965; Scheffer, Hnn, & Russo, 1966; Wsik, 1969) nd pplied studies (Ayllon & Azrin, 1968; Btemn, 1975; Roberts, 1969; Wsik, 1970) tht were seen s due only to probbility differentil between responses. In light of the present findings, these instnces of pprent support for the Premck Principle my be conceptulized s specil cses of the effects of responsive deprivtion. Tht is, it now ppers tht the Premck Principle is successful only when it results in schedule requirements tht produce the condition of response deprivtion. Indeed, Premck ws wre of the importnce of this vrible nd suggested tht reserchers, "elevte this fctor (reltive suppression of the contingent response) from its obscure sttus s hidden concomitnt to tht of public opertion where its consequences for theory cn be exmined" (Premck, 1965, p. 173). The present reserch my be viewed s following in this trdition. It should be mentioned tht this study differed procedurlly from most of the lbortory studies of response deprivtion (Allison & Timberlke, 1974, 1975; Timberlke & Allison, 1974) becuse reciprocl contingency ws not employed. In reciprocl contingency, the subject must fulfill the instrumentl requirement to gin ccess to the contingent response nd then must complete the contingent requirement to regin the instrumentl response. In other words, either the instrumentl or contingent response is vilble to the subject during the contingency but never both t the sme time. The procedure is employed to ensure tht the subject meets with the experimenter-designted schedule re-

13 RESPONSE DEPRIVATION 607 quirements (Timberlke & Allison, 1974). However, Heth nd Wrren (1978) criticized the use of reciprocl contingency on the grounds tht it provided ssessment of the instrumentl response over shorter time frme thn during bseline thereby mking it difficult to evlute firmly the reltive rtes of responding between these conditions. To overcome this problem, the instrumentl response ws vilble for the entire session cross ll phses in this study. An exmintion of the ctul rtes of responding of the children determined tht they were indeed meeting with the schedule requirements in both the RD nd RD conditions. Importntly, the children's ctul rtes of behvior in the RD conditions continued to fulfill the response deprivtion eqution. Therefore, reciprocl contingency ws not required to hve the children fulfill the requirements of the schedules. The clinicl significnce of the present findings for pplied reserchers is tht the Response Deprivtion Hypothesis offers ll the dvntges of the Premck Principle (cf. Knpp, 1976, p. 134) for estblishing reinforcement schedules plus severl more. First, it increses the quntity of reinforcers vilble for use by specifying lrger pool of potentil reinforcers thn the Premck Principle. According to the Response Deprivtion Hypothesis, ny response cn serve s reinforcer for nother response s long s its opernt level is bove zero. This hypothesis predicts tht s long s the subject engges in behvior, there is potentil for using tht behvior s reinforcer, regrdless of the probbility differentil, if ny, reltive to the desired instrumentl response. Second, the Response Deprivtion Hypothesis suggests tht clinicins re not limited to trditionl reinforcers which my be of dubious clinicl vlue to the subject (e.g., free time, food) or to responses with pproprite probbility differentils. Using this pproch, the qulity of reinforcers would be improved for responses tht re of socil, helth, or eductionl benefit cn be selected priori to fit the specific needs of the subject. For exmple, s ws the cse in Experiment 2 of this study, cdemic behviors could function s both the contingent nd instrumentl responses, thereby providing more opportunity for prctice on these eductionlly importnt behviors. A third dvntge suggested by the nture of this hypothesis is tht either behvior cn serve s the instrumentl or contingent response. Therefore, one set of bseline dt could serve s the bsis for estblishing two different schedules, ech using different contingent response. These schedules could then be used t different times to lterntely increse the performnce of ech behvior so tht one behvior need not be continully suppressed t the expense of incresing nother. An empiricl demonstrtion of this use of the Response Deprivtion Hypothesis in n pplied setting would give tremendous support for its use s clinicl tool. Such demonstrtions hve lredy been mde in lbortory studies of running nd drinking in rts (Timberlke & Allison, 1974; Timberlke & Wozny, 1979). The fourth dvntge of the Response Deprivtion Hypothesis is tht unlike the Premck Principle, which requires durtion mesures to determine the reltive probbilities of the responses, ny response mesure (such s rte, frequency, or durtion) cn be used for ssessment purposes (Timberlke & Allison, 1974). In fct, the sme response mesure need not be used to ssess both behviors. Different mesures could be used s long s I is mesured in the sme units s Oi nd C is the sme units s O. This pproch is more flexible technique tht cn be pplied using the most convenient response mesure for behvior in prticulr sitution. Severl points need be considered to use the Response Deprivtion Hypothesis correctly s guide for estblishing reinforcement schedules. The first is tht n ccurte ssessment of the opernt levels of both behviors must be ccomplished to determine schedule requirements tht produce response deprivtion. Timberlke nd Allison (1974) suggested tht pired-opernt bseline, where both responses re freely vilble t the sme time, is the best method of obtining this ssessment. The typicl method of

14 608 EDWARD A. KONARSKI et l. ssessing only instrumentl responding (Knpp, 1976) must therefore be expnded to include ssessment of the contingent response. Second, to dte, the hypothesis hs primrily been tested only in situtions where the subject did not hve redy ccess to lterntive responses which my ct s substitutes for the desired instrumentl response. Therefore, its clinicl ppliction is limited to situtions where there re only two clerly defined responses. Although Bernstein (1974) hs provided initil support in this regrd, further support for the Response Deprivtion Hypothesis within the context of multiple response setting is required before its ppliction cn extend beyond two response sitution. Finlly, ny schedule requirements tht produce response deprivtion should produce the reinforcement effect. However, if the schedule requirements re so lrge tht the subject cnnot fulfill them or cnnot form the contingent reltionship between the responses, n increse of instrumentl responding my not pper. Thus, unless instructions or cues re used to communicte the schedule requirements nd the reltionship between the responses (Bernstein, 1974), they must be smll enough so the contingency cn be completed severl times within session to mke it more likely the subject's behvior will come in contct with the schedule. A prcticl cution regrding this suggestion is tht schedule requirements cnnot be so smll s to prohibit pproprite responding. For exmple, ccess to complex mth problems for only 30 sec my interfere with the student being ble to complete problem within tht time frme. In conclusion, the preliminry evidence presented here suggests tht the Response Deprivtion Hypothesis my offer n ccurte explntion of reinforcement effects in single response, instrumentl schedules using cdemic responses. More importntly for pplied reserchers, it ppers this hypothesis hs some importnt implictions for the control of socilly importnt behviors in tht it seems to hve further dvntges to its use s tool for estblishing reinforcement schedules thn ny previous pproch. More reserch is needed of both n pplied nd experimentl/theoreticl nture, however, to determine the pplicbility nd effectiveness of this hypothesis for use in pplied settings. REFERENCE NOTE 1. Butcher, J., & Osborne, J. G. An pplied nlysis of the response deprivtion hypothesis. Pper presented t the meeting of the Midwestern Assocition of Behvior Anlysis, Chicgo, My REFERENCES Allison, J., Miller, M., & Wozny, M. Conservtion in behvior. Journl of Experimentl Psychology: Generl, 1979, 108, Allison, J., & Timberlke, W. Instrumentl nd contingent scchrin licking in rts: Response deprivtion nd reinforcement. Lerning nd Motivtion, 1974, 5, Allison, J., & Timberlke, W. Response deprivtion nd instrumentl performnce in the controlledmount prdigm. Lerning nd Motivtion, 1975, 6, Ayllon, T., & Azrin, N. The Token Economy: A motivtionl system for therpy nd rehbilittion. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Btemn, S. Appliction of Premck's generliztion on reinforcement to modify occuptionl behvior in two severely retrded individuls. Americn Journl of Mentl Deficiency, 1975, 79, Bernstein, D. Structure nd function in response repertoires of humns. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms Interntionl, Bernstein, D.; & Ebbesen, E. Reinforcement nd substitution in humns: A multiple-response nlysis. Journl of the Experimentl Anlysis of Behvior, 1978, 30, Dnher, B. C. Theoreticl foundtions nd clinicl pplictions of the Premck Principle: A review nd critique. Behvior Therpy, 1974, 5, Eisenberger, R., Krpmn, M., & Trttner, J. Wht is the necessry nd sufficient condition for reinforcement in the contingency sitution? journl of Experimentl Psychology, 1967, 74, Hrtje, J. C. Premckin reinforcement of clssroom behvior through topic sequencing. Journl of Psychology, 1973, 84, Hersen, M., & Brlow, D. Single cse experimentl designs: Strtegies for studying behvior chnge. New York: Pergmon Press, Heth, D. C., & Wrren, A. G. Response deprivtion

15 RESPONSE DEPRIVATION 609 nd response stition s determinnts of instrumentl performnce: Some dt nd theory. Animl Lerning nd Behvior, 1978, 6, Homme, L. E., debc, P., Devine, J. V., Steinhorst, R., & Rickert, E. J. Use of the Premck Principle in controlling the behvior of nursery school children. Journl of the Experimentl Anlysis of Behvior, 1963, 6, 544. Kelly, M. B. A review of the observtionl dtcollection nd relibility procedures reported in the Journl of Applied Behvior Anlysis. Journl of Applied Behvior Anlysis, 1977, 10, Knpp, T. J. The Premck Principle in humn experimentl nd pplied settings. Behviour Reserch nd Therpy, 1976, 14, Mitchell, W. S., & Stffelmyr, B. E. Appliction of the Premck Principle to the behviorl control of extremely inctive schizophrenics. Journl of Applied Behvior Anlysis, 1973, 6, Osborne, J. G. Free time s reinforcer in the mngement of clssroom behvior. Journl of Applied Behvior Anlysis, 1969, 2, Premck, D. Towrd empiricl behvior lws: I. Positive reinforcement. Psychologicl Review, 1959, 66, Premck, D. Rte differentil reinforcement in monkey mnipultion. Journl of the Experimentl Anlysis of Behvior, 1963, 6, Premck, D. Reinforcement theory. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebrsk symposium on motivtion. Lincoln: University of Nebrsk Press, Premck, D. Ctching up with common sense or two sides of generliztion: reinforcement nd punishment. In R. Glser (Ed.), The nture of reinforcement. New York: Acdemic Press, Rchlin, H., & Burkhrd, B. The temporl tringle: Response substitution in instrumentl conditioning. Psychologicl Review, 1978, 85, Roberts, A. E. Development of self-control using Premck's differentil rte hypothesis: A cse study. Behviour Reserch nd Therpy, 1969, 7, Scheffer, R., Hnn, B., & Russo, P. Positive reinforcement: A test of the Premck theory. Psychonomic Science, 1966, 4, 78. Skinner, B. F. The generic nture of the concepts of stimulus nd response. Journl of Generl Psychology, 1935, 12, Spence, K. W. Behvior theory nd conditioning. New Hven: Yle University Press, Timberlke, W. Licking one scchrin solution for ccess to nother: Contingent nd noncontingent effects. Animl Lerning & Behvior, 1979, 7, Timberlke, W., & Allison, J. Response deprivtion: An empiricl pproch to instrumentl performnce. Psychologicl Review, 1974, 81, Timberlke, W., & Wozny, M. Reversibility of reinforcement between eting nd running by schedule chnges: A comprison of hypotheses nd models. Animl Lerning & Behvior, 1979, 7, Wsik, B. H. The effects of fixed rtio nd contingent time on humn lever pressing behvior. Psychologicl Record, 1969, 19, Wsik, B. H. The ppliction of Premck's generliztion on reinforcement to the mngement of clssroom behvior. Journl of Experimentl Child Psychology, 1970, 10, Received December 31, 1979 Finl cceptnce June 6, 1980