A COMPARISON OF RESPONSE-STIMULUS AND STIMULUS-STIMULUS PAIRING PROCEDURES ON

CONDITIONING PEERS AS REINFORCERS

Samantha Lee

Dr. Sacha T. Pence, BCBA-D

BACKGROUND

According to the Center for Disease Control, most children express a desire to interact and communicate with others before the age of 2 (“Important Milestones,” 2014).

However, children with developmental delays may fail to meet this milestone at the same time their peers do (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

Signs of developmental delays first become prevalent in early childhood (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

When detected early, developmental delays are often treated with early intensive behavior interventions (EIBI; Marfo, 1988).

One of the most popular forms of EIBI is applied behavior analysis (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968).

APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS

Reinforcers: stimuli that increase the likelihood of a future behavior occurring when provided contingent on a certain behavior (Skinner, 1938)

Positive reinforcers Candy or snacks

Favorite toys or other activities

Negative reinforcers Taking away demands

Removal of an unpleasant stimulus

Primary reinforcers and secondary reinforcers (Skinner, 1974)

CONDITIONING PROCEDURES

Stimulus-Stimulus Pairing

Unconditioned Stimulus (US) Reinforcer, US Conditioned Stimulus (CS)

Example: Peer Toy, Peer CS

Response-Stimulus Pairing

US UR Reinforcer, US CS, CS Conditioned Response

Example: Peer “Let’s play!” Toy, Peer CS, Peer “Let’s play!”

CONDITIONING SOCIAL STIMULI

Social stimuli: stimuli that evoke responses related to interpersonal relationships Gilbert, Fiske, & Lindzey (1998)

Vaughan & Michael (1982)

Conditioned as reinforcers for people with developmental disabilities or delays to make social interactions more appetitive Ritsner (2010)

Greer, Pistoljevic, Cahill & Du (2011)

Dozier, Iwata, Thomason-Sassi, Worsdell, & Wilson (2012)

CONDITIONING PEERS

Little research has examined if pairing procedures can be used to condition peers as reinforcers. Kodak, Paden, & Dickes (2012)

Taylor et al. (2005)

Conditioning peers as reinforcers could lead to increased observations in appropriate play and communication skills in children with developmental disabilities or delays.

If therapists can successfully condition peers as reinforcers for individuals with social skill deficits, then conditioned peers could be used in a wide variety of treatments to promote the acquisition of appropriate play and communication skills.

Purpose: to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of using stimulus-stimulus and response-stimulus pairing procedures to condition preschool-aged peers as reinforcers for children with developmental delays.

METHOD & RESULTS

PARTICIPANTS

Carla and Mason

Five years old

Diagnosed with developmental delay

Communicate vocally

Mastered at least five motor commands (e.g., “clap hands”)

Demonstrated low levels of social behavior when interacting with peers

Ashley and Miles

Four years old

Typically developing

Able to follow at least five basic directions (e.g., “Give him the candy.”)

Able to engage in moderate amounts of cooperative plan with peers during classroom observation

SETTING, MATERIALS, AND DATA COLLECTION

Setting: assessment room or cubicle in a local preschool

Materials Pairing Sessions

Red and green stimulus cards

Preferred edibles (Doritos and Oreos for Mason; popcorn, Cheetos, and Fruit Loops for Carla)

Probes

Red, green, and blue stimulus cards

Timer

Divider, three chairs, and two identical sets of toys (Mr. Potato Head, play dishes, and pretend foods)

Data Collection Data was collected on pencil and paper.

All sessions were recorded on video.

Interobserver agreement (IOA) and treatment fidelity data will be collected for at least 33% of sessions.

PREFERENCE ASSESSMENTS

Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement (MSWO; DeLeon & Iwata, 1996)

Seven preferred edibles were presented in an array.

Each participant was told to pick one edible.

The picked item was consumed, remaining items were rearranged, and the participant was again told to pick one item.

The process was repeated until all items were consumed or the participant refused to pick an item.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Popcorn Cheetos Fruit Loops Fritos Crackers Pretzels Goldfish

Per

cent

Sel

ecte

d

Items

Carla

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Doritos Cheetos Skittles Pretzels Oreos Chips Ahoy M&Ms

Per

cent

Sel

ecte

d

Items

Mason

REINFORCER ASSESSMENT: CARLA

Reversal design

Arbitrary task: touch a colored card

Gray: control condition

Yellow: high-preferred item condition (FR-2 Schedule)

Procedure

Deliver rule (“Remember, when you touch the (color) card you get (nothing/high preferred edible.”).

Deliver discriminative stimulus (SD; state “Do this” and provide model response).

Prompt participant to complete task once.

Repeat procedures for forced exposure trial once.

Start timer and continue session to the first break point or for 2 minutes.

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Rat

e of

Tar

get

Res

ponse

(s)

Session

Carla

Control Control ControlPopcorn

Fruit Loop Cheetos

REINFORCER ASSESSMENT: MASON

Reversal design

Arbitrary task: step up on a step stool

White sheet of paper: control condition

Blue sheet of paper: high-preferred item condition (FR-1 Schedule)

Procedure

Deliver SD (state “Do this” and provide model response).

Prompt participant to complete task once.

Repeat procedures for forced exposure trial once.

Start timer and continue session to the first break point or for 5 minutes.

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Rat

e of

Tar

get

Res

ponse

(s)

Session

Mason

ControlDoritos Oreos ControlControl

STIMULUS-STIMULUS (SS) PROBES

Ten minutes

Assessment room divided in half

“Peer” side (with Ashley): two chairs, red stimulus card, set of toys

“Alone” side: one chair, blue stimulus card, identical set of toys

4-trial block of forced-exposure trials (2 alternating trials on each side)

After forced-exposure trials, the probe began.

Participant moved to the middle of the assessment room.

Experimenter delivered SD (“Remember, if you want to sit next to Ashley, sit on the red side. If you want to sit by yourself, sit on the blue side.”)

Ashley Alone

“If you want to sit next

to Ashley, sit on the red

side.”

“If you want to sit by

yourself, sit on the blue

side.”

Ashley Alone

“If you want to sit next

to Ashley, sit on the red

side.”

“If you want to sit by

yourself, sit on the blue

side.”

“Remember, if you want to sit next to Ashley, sit on the red

side. If you want to sit by yourself, sit on the blue side.”

SS PAIRINGS

40 trials/session

3 chairs for the participant, Ashley, and the researcher

Red stimulus card

Procedure

Ashley delivers a quasi-randomly selected highly preferred edible in each trial.

5-s interval between each trial

After 5 pairing sessions, a stimulus-stimulus probe for conditioned reinforcement is conducted.

Termination criteria: 50 sessions or spending 70% of a probe with the peer across three consecutive probes

RESPONSE-STIMULUS (RS) PROBES

Ten minutes

Assessment room divided in half

“Peer” side (with Miles): two chairs, green stimulus card, set of toys

“Alone” side: one chair, blue stimulus card, identical set of toys

4-trial block of forced-exposure trials (2 alternating trials on each side)

After forced-exposure trials, the probe began.

Participant moved to the middle of the assessment room.

Experimenter delivered SD (“Remember, if you want to sit next to Miles, sit on the green side. If you want to sit by yourself, sit on the blue side.”)

Miles Alone

“If you want to sit next

to Miles, sit on the green

side.”

“If you want to sit by

yourself, sit on the blue

side.”

Miles Alone

“If you want to sit next

to Miles, sit on the green

side.”

“If you want to sit by

yourself, sit on the blue

side.”

“Remember, if you want to sit next to Miles, sit on the

green side. If you want to sit by yourself, sit on the blue

side.”

RS PAIRINGS

40 trials/session

3 chairs for the participant, Miles, and the researcher

Green stimulus card

Procedure The researcher delivers a quasi-randomly selected mastered motor task to the participant (e.g., “Clap

hands.”).

Researcher uses least-to-most prompting procedures to illicit the correct response from the participant.

Miles delivers a quasi-randomly selected highly preferred edible for each correct response.

The researcher delivers neutral praise (e.g., “Good job.”)

5-s interval between each trial

After 5 pairing sessions, a response-stimulus probe for conditioned reinforcement is conducted.

Termination criteria: 50 sessions or spending 70% of a probe with the peer across three consecutive probes

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Per

cent

Dura

tion (

s)

Sessions

Carla

SS Peer

SS Alone

RS Peer

RS Alone

Baseline Post-Pairing

Probes

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Per

cent

Dura

tion (

s)

Sessions

Mason

SS Peer

SS Alone

RS Peer

RS Alone

Baseline Post-Pairing

Probes

DISCUSSION

IMPLICATIONS

The study is currently ongoing, so results are inconclusive as of now.

If peers can be conditioned as reinforcers, then practitioners can develop intervention plans simultaneously treating social skill deficits and promoting peer interactions.

Conditioned peers can also deliver other reinforcers and make reinforcement more potent.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Future studies may wish to evaluate ways to condition peers without the presence of an adult during pairing procedures.

Future studies may also wish to examine the effects of conditioning procedures on peers that function as aversive stimuli.

Future studies should seek to evaluate the use of conditioned peers as reinforcers in skill acquisition programs.

ANY QUESTIONS? Thanks for coming!

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders(5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Baer, D.M., Wolf, M.M., & Risley, T.R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,1, 91-97.

DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A., (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519-533. doi:10.1901/jaba.1996.29-519

Dozier, C. L., Iwata, B. A., Thomason-Sassi, J., Worsdell, A. S., & Wilson, D. M., (2012). A comparison of two pairing procedures to establish praise as a reinforcer. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45, 721-735. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2012.45-721

Gilbert, D., Fiske, S., & Lindzey, G. (1998). The Handbook of Social Psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies.

REFERENCES (CONT.)

Greer, R. D., Pistoljevic, N., Cahill, C., & Du, L., (2011). Effects of conditioning voices as reinforcers for listener responses on rate of learning, awareness, and preferences for listening to stories in preschoolers with autism. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 27, 103-124.

Important milestones: Your child at two years. (2014, March 27). Retrieved April 27, 2015, from http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/actearly/milestones/milestones-2yr.html

Kodak, T., Paden, A., & Dickes, N., (2012). Training and generalization of peer-directed mandswith non-vocal children with autism. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 28, 119-124.

Marfo, K. (1988). Early intervention with developmentally delayed infants and preschool children in Newfoundland and Labrador. Washington, D.C.: ERIC Clearinghouse.

Ritsner, M. (Ed.). (2010). Brain Protection in Schizophrenia, Mood and Cognitive Disorders. Dordrecht: Springer.

REFERENCES (CONT.)

Skinner, B. F., (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Skinner, B. F., (1974). About behaviorism. New York, NY: Knopf.

Taylor, B. A., Hoch, H., Potter, B., Rodriguez, A., Spinnato, D., & Kalaigian, M., (2005). Manipulating establishing operations to promote initiations towards peers in children with autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26, 385-392.

Vaughan, M. E., & Michael, J., (1982). Automatic reinforcement: An important but ignored concept. Behaviorism, 10, 217–227.