beatleyweb.simmons.edu€¦ · web vieweach set of colored cards contained the total number of...

Adjunctive Behavior 1

The Examination of Stereotypic Responding as Adjunctive Behavior in Children with Autism

during Progressive and Regressive Schedules of Reinforcement

Timothy Piskura

Simmons College


Schedule-induced or adjunctive behavior has been documented in both the basic and

applied behavior analytic literatures. Adjunctive behavior has been briefly defined as behavior

that occurs and is maintained indirectly by on-going reinforcement of an unrelated response

(Foster, 1978; Mace & Wacker, 1994). A broader definition has been provided by Falk (1971)

as behavior maintained at high probability by stimuli whose reinforcing properties in the

situation are derived primarily as a function of schedule parameters governing the availability of

another class of reinforcer. The characteristics of adjunctive behavior distinguish it from either

operant or respondent behavior. Such characteristics include the preponderance of adjunctive

behavior occurring in the immediate post-reinforcement period of schedules maintaining other

behaviors, characteristic functions relating levels of adjunctive behaviors to parameters of the

schedules inducing the behavior, direct relationship to both the magnitude of and deprivation for

reinforcers maintaining other behaviors, and the excessive nature of behaviors in question (Falk,

1971). This latter characteristic bears upon the experimental questions addressed by the present

study. What follows is a brief review of the history of research with adjunctive behaviors, with

focus on the discovery, early findings, and generality with respect to the range of topographies of

behaviors termed adjunctive, as well as the species (both human and non-human) with

documented display of adjunctive behavior.

Initial Demonstration

In 1961 Falk reported that food deprived rats with lever pressing reinforced by food

presentation under a variable-interval 1-min schedule consumed inordinate amounts of water

during experimental sessions. For example, during the 3.17-hr session a rat might consume half

of its body weight in water. Polydipsic drinking took the form of an intense bout of licking from

a water tube in the immediate post-reinforcement period. The excessive drinking was


remarkable, as food deprived rats typically exhibit a decrease in water intake when not exposed

to intermittent schedules of food presentation. Subsequent research (Falk, 1969) showed that

polydipsia was not directly or adventitiously maintained by scheduled food delivery, did not

serve a timing or mediational function, and was not elicited by food delivery. Since its initial

demonstration, polydipsia has been shown to occur under a variety of schedule conditions (cf.

Falk, 1971) and in a variety of species including rats (Falk, 1961), monkeys (Shuster & Woods,

1966), and pigeons (Magyar & Malagodi, 1980; Shanab & Peterson, 1966). Additionally, access

to water for animals not deprived of water, but receiving food under an intermittent schedule of

food presentation, has been shown to sustain operant behavior (i.e., serves as reinforcement for)

itself.

Other Topographies of Schedule-Induced Behavior

In addition to polydipsia, other behaviors (collectively termed adjunctive behaviors) have

been shown to emerge in strength (are induced) during intermittent schedules of reinforcement

(Falk, 1971, Staddon, 1977). Other induced behaviors include aggression (e.g., Hutchinson,

Azrin, & Hunt, 1968; Flory, 1969), hose-biting (DeWeese, 1977), self-imposed timeout from

positive reinforcement (e.g., Brown & Flory, 1972; Dardano, 1973), as well as wheel running

and air licking in rats (Mendelson & Chillag, 1970). The common characteristics shared by

these topographies with those of schedule-induced polydipsia include a preponderance of

occurrence in the immediate post-reinforcement period (cf., Falk, 1971), direct relationships with

the magnitude of (Pitts & Malagodi, 1996) and deprivation for (Dove, 1976; Falk, 1969)

reinforcers maintaining a concurrent operant response, levels of these adjunctive behaviors being

functionally related to the rate of reinforcement (or interreinforcement times) for the concurrent

operant response (cf. Falk, 1971), access to engage in adjunctive responding functioning as


reinforcement for other operant responses (Falk, 1966b; Cherek, Thompson, & Heistad, 1973),

and their excessive nature. These commonalities occasioned Falk (1971) to suggest that

adjunctive behaviors represent a third class of behaviors, distinct from operant or respondent.

Classes of behavior are defined, not by their topography, but rather by the conditions or

controlling variables of their occurrence (Skinner, 1938). Thus, just as an eye blink or key peck

can be classified as either operant or respondent depending upon the variables controlling a given

response, adjunctive behaviors are not novel behaviors, but represent similar topographies

evoked under new motivational and occasioning circumstances.

Previous Findings from Adjunctive Behavior Research

Staddon (1977) termed adjunctive behavior as “interim activities” that occur at times

when reinforcement is unlikely to occur. Both Staddon and Falk identified that adjunctive

behavior was observed to emerge after only a few exposures to schedule conditions. Both

Staddon and Falk discussed the temporal relation between reinforcement and adjunctive behavior

in each of their findings (Falk, 1961, 1966, 1969, 1971; Staddon, 1977; Staddon & Simmelhag,

1974). Staddon observed the post-reinforcement period as a determinant of adjunctive behavior

and similarly Falk included the occurrence of adjunctive behavior during the post-reinforcement

period as a definitional characteristic. In addition to the temporal relation of adjunctive behavior

to reinforcement, both Staddon and Falk suggested that reinforcement rate contributed to the

occurrence and levels of the adjunctive behavior. Falk (1966) reported that levels of adjunctive

behavior were functionally related to the duration of the interfood interval during parametric

comparisons of fixed-interval schedules. Both Falk (1971) and Staddon (1977) suggest that

induced, interim, or adjunctive activities have broad generality, are post-reinforcement

phenomena, are generally excessive in nature, are directly related to deprivation for and


magnitude of reinforcement, and stand in a functional relation with rate of reinforcement. Each

of these general characteristics of adjunctive behavior are described below.

Temporal Locus of Adjunctive Behavior

Research has identified a defining characteristic of adjunctive behavior as the temporal

relationship between the delivery / termination of scheduled reinforcement. Adjunctive behavior

occurs immediately following the termination of reinforcement of the operant response (e.g.,

Brown & Flory, 1969; DeWeese, 1977; Falk, 1961, 1966a, 1966b; Flory, 1969; Malagodi &

Magyar, 1980). The post-reinforcement locus of polydipsia suggests that the induced responding

is not a product of adventitious reinforcement: Behavior under the control of food delivery would

follow a positively accelerating pattern in which the response would not occur following the

termination of the reinforcement (post-reinforcement pause), but would become increasingly

more probable as reinforcement delivery neared. Adjunctive behavior occurs predominantly

during the immediate post-reinforcement period regardless of the duration of the inter-

reinforcement interval.

Deprivation Level

Deprivation level (of food) has also been shown to be a determinant of adjunctive

behavior. Falk (1969) observed that rats kept at 80% of their free feeding weight engaged in

high levels of polydipsia. As the weight of the rats was systematically increased to 95 – 105% of

their free-feeding weight polydipsia decreased to 20% of its peak level. Similarly, Dove (1974)

reported a positive relation between levels of adjunctive attack and degree of food deprivation

for pigeons during fixed-time (FT) schedules of food presentation. Staddon (1977) suggested


that the motivational “states” (deprivation) that fill the inter-reinforcement interval resemble

thirst or hunger with respect to the adjunctive behavior engaged in by the subject.

Schedule Variables

Previous research demonstrates that adjunctive behaviors are induced during fixed time

schedules (e.g., Flory, 1969; Lerman et al., 1994), progressive and regressive ratio schedules

(Allen et al., 1981; Dardano, 1973), fixed and variable interval schedules (Falk, 1961, 1966a;

Brown & Flory, 1972) and fixed and variable ratio schedules (Webbe, DeWeese, & Malagodi,

1974). However, there remains disagreement concerning the shape of the function describing

levels of adjunctive behavior as the rate of reinforcement is varied under different schedules of

reinforcement. (See below)

While adjunctive behavior has been shown to occur within both fixed and variable

schedules, results suggest it occurs at greater levels during fixed schedules of reinforcement

(e.g., Webbe, DeWeese, & Malagodi, 1974). Adjunctive behavior is typically confined to the

immediate post-reinforcement period thus schedules that result in the greatest duration of post-

reinforcement pausing are arguably most likely to engender adjunctive behavior. Ferster and

Skinner (1957) reported that as the size of the fixed ratio schedule was increased, the post-

reinforcement pause also increased. Simarly, Powell (1968) found that during progressive ratio

schedules (PR) with ratio values systematically increasing in size (up to FR 160) pausing

increased systematically with each ratio step. Powell found a similar function during a

regressive ratio schedule during which the ratio requirement for reinforcement decreased

systematically (FR 160 to FR 10). Finally, although adjunctive behavior has been observed

during response-dependent and response-independent schedules of reinforcement, Kupfer et al.


(2008) reported that fixed-ratio schedules induced higher levels of adjunctive aggression than

under response-independent schedules of food presentation equated for reinforcement rate.

Induced Behavior as a Function of Schedule Parameters

As suggested above, some discussion remains regarding the shape of the function(s)

relating adjunctive behavior to the rate of reinforcement across schedule types. Falk (1966a)

showed that levels of polydipsia first increased and then decreased in an inverted bitonic function

as the duration of fixed-interval food schedules were varied from FI 120 to FI 180. Similar

results have been reported for adjunctive self-imposed time out (Brown & Flory, 1972) and

aggression (Cherek, Thompson, & Heistad, 1973) in pigeons during varied FI schedules of food

presentation. The similarity in functions across adjunctive topographies led Falk (1971) to

suggest that this inverted bitonic function relating levels of adjunctive behavior to the duration of

inter-reinforcement interval (or conversely reinforcement rate) was characteristic or definitional

for adjunctive behavior. Conversely, Staddon (1977) suggested that the highest rates of

adjunctive behavior occur under schedules with higher rates of reinforcement with steadily

decreasing rates of adjunctive behavior as the rate of reinforcement becomes more intermittent.

Staddon suggested that it was the descending trend of adjunctive behavior with increasing inter-

reinforcement durations (or conversely reinforcement rate) that better depicts the relation

between levels of adjunctive behavior and reinforcement rate.

The shape of the function describing the relation of levels of adjunctive responding and

rate of reinforcement during ratio schedules has been less examined and remains unclear.

Hutchinson, Azrin, and Hunt (1968) report that adjunctive hose-biting (aggression) increased

with increased response requirements under FR schedules of food presentation. Subsequently, as


the FR schedule decreased, adjunctive biting decreased as well. Similar results were obtained

with adjunctive self-imposed time-outs during ratio schedules (Azrin, 1961) and progressive

ratio schedules (Dardano, 1973). It may be suggested that the ratio schedule values examined

with ratio schedules were not large enough to expose subjects to inter-reinforcement intervals

sufficiently long as to observe the decreasing limb of a bitonic function. However, Allen et al.,

(1981) report that adjunctive aggression in pigeons increased monotonically with ratio size under

large regressive ratio schedules of food presentation. Despite inter-reinforcement intervals in

excess of 30 minutes at the highest ratio value in the regression series, a decreasing limb of a

bitonic function was not observed. Thus, it remains unclear if a single function describes the

relation between levels of adjunctive behavior and rate of reinforcement or if additional variables

(such as schedule type) are also important determinants of adjunctive responding. Additional

research and consensus around methodological considerations may help to clarify these results.

Methodological Considerations

Some of the discrepancies in the functions relating levels of adjunctive responding and

rate of reinforcement during interval and ratio schedule of reinforcement may be related to the

types of measures of adjunctive responding employed. For example, some studies have

employed rate of adjunctive behavior as the sole or primary dependent measure of responding.

Alternatively, other studies have employed time-independent or magnitude measures (e.g.,

attacks per reinforcement) to describe adjunctive responding. Allen et al. (1981) reported that

adjunctive aggression of pigeons during varied ratio schedules of reinforcement was either a

bitonic function or direct monotonic function of ratio size depending upon the use of time-based

or time-independent measures of responding, respectively. This question is further explored in

the Discussion.


The Excessive Nature of Adjunctive Behavior

“Excessive” is not an easy characteristic of behavior to operationalize. Of the various

topographies of adjunctive behavior, excessive may be easiest to quantify with polydipsia. Falk

(1961) observed polydipsia as an adjunctive behavior in rats that had been food deprived.

Typically, food deprivation in rats yields a decrease in water intake, rather than an increase. Falk

identified that having to heat large amounts of unnecessary water to body temperature and expel

it as urine as a wasteful use of energy for an animal already deprived of food. Falk reported that

rats weighing approximately 200 grams would drink an average of 92.5 ml of water per

experimental session. Under experimental conditions, rats would drink themselves into

dilutional hyponatremia (water intoxication) under circumstances where the rats typically would

be drinking less water (i.e., food deprivation). Thus Falk (1971) suggested that a characteristic

of adjunctive behavior was its excessive nature. Falk argued that any aggression or any escape

from a reinforcement schedule for food-deprived organism may be considered excessive. It has

been suggested in subsequent studies that the adjunctive behaviors occur in excess relative to

their baseline or free operant rates when no schedule of reinforcement is in place (Falk, 1972;

Staddon, 1977; Wieseler, Hanson, Chamberlain, and Thompson, 1988; Emerson & Howard,

1992; Lerman, Iwata, Zarcone, & Ringdahl, 1994). For example, Wieseler et al. (1988)

compared rates of stereotypic movements by adults with developmental disabilities during

schedules of continuous reinforcement and no reinforcement to those under varied FI schedules.

Percent of intervals in which stereotypic behavior was observed were higher when a FI schedule

was in place then during no reinforcement or continuous reinforcement. Thus, “no

reinforcement” or “massed reinforcement” conditions (equal frequency of reinforcement


presented all at once, rather than intermittently) have frequently been employed as control

conditions in comparison with intermittent reinforcement schedules (Cohen & Looney, 1984).

Adjunctive Behaviors with Humans

Considerably less research has explored adjunctive behavior with human participants.

Applied research utilizing human participants has shown evidence of adjunctive behaviors in the

form of aggression in nursery school children (Frederiksen & Peterson, 1974), stereotypic

behaviors in children and adults (Hollis, 1973; Wieseler, Hanson, Chamberlain, & Thompson,

1988; Emerson & Howard, 1992; Lerman, et al., 1994;) and college students eating, drinking,

and smoking (Wallace, Sanson, & Singer, 1977). Frederickson and Peterson found that nursery

school children would hit an inflatable doll during imposed reinforcement plus extinction

conditions. The data showed higher rates of aggression during reinforcement plus extinction

than during baseline and continuous reinforcement conditions. Wallace et al. recorded the

movement behavior of university students during conditions of no available food, free access to

food, and experimenter regulated delivery of food. The authors reported findings similar to

Frederickson and Peterson as well as Azrin et al. (1966) in that adjunctive behavior was observed

during exposure to an intermittent reinforcement schedule, rather than during periods of no

reinforcement or continuous reinforcement.

The finding of adjunctive behavior in both non-human subjects and human participants

speaks to the generality of the phenomena. Furthermore, it validates a need for further research

to identify the determinants and characteristics of what has been identified as a fundamental

topic and to address a misconnection between basic and applied research (Foster, 1978; Mace &


Wacker, 1994). One important translational extension of laboratory research on adjunctive

behavior may be stereotypic responding in humans.

Stereotypic Responding as Adjunctive Behavior

Self-stimulatory or stereotypic behaviors such as repetitive, non-functional motor

movements and non-contextual vocal utterances are an important diagnostic feature for autism

spectrum disorder (Boyd, McDonough, & Bodfish, 2012). Stereotypic behavior often occurs at

high rates in the repertoires of individuals with austism or other developmental delays and has

been shown to interfere with skill acquisition (Michelotti, Charman, Slonims, & Baird, 2002).

Although there are several demonstrations of the successful management of challenging

stereotypic behaviors (e.g., Aherns, Clark, & Macdonald, 2007; Laprime & Dittrich, 2014),

therapeutic control remains difficult due to the presumed automatic nature of the reinforcement

maintaining responding. This assumed automatic reinforcing nature of stereotypic behavior

suggests it may be similar to adjunctive behavior in nonhumans (e.g., Lerman et al., 1994).

Both Emerson and Howard (1992) and Lerman et al. (1994) report that individuals with

severe or profound mental retardation, as well as children and adults with autism, engage in

higher rates of stereotypic behavior during intermittent schedules of reinforcement than during

baseline conditions. Emerson and Howard suggest that stereotypy had increased from no-

reinforcement or extinction baselines as a direct result of the schedule of reinforcement and

further suggest that high rates of stereotypy could have been induced and maintained as

adjunctive behavior during the intermittent schedules of reinforcement. Emerson and Howard

found that the adjunctive behavior exceeded baseline levels by 150% once the schedule

requirements had been imposed.


Lerman et al. (1994) exposed participants with developmental delays found to engage in

both stereotypic and self-injurious behaviors to schedules of reinforcement that included fixed

time food reinforcement of 15 seconds, 30 seconds, 60 seconds, 120 seconds, and 300 seconds.

They found that stereotypic behaviors were consistent with the temporal and magnitude

requirements of adjunctive behavior, while self-injurious behavior were not. Finally, Wiesler et

al. (1988) reported that stereotypic responding of adults with developmental disabilities under

varied fixed-interval schedules controlling a concurrent operant behavior was shown to be an

increasing function of inter-reinforcement interval. Given the frequent imposition of intermittent

schedules during adaptive and academic instruction for individuals with developmental

disabilities, exploration of the relations between stereotypic responding and the frequency of

reinforcement seems warranted.

Purpose of Current Study

The purpose of the present study is to extend previous experimental and applied research

in the analyses of levels and temporal patterning of stereotypic responding during progressive

and regressive ratio schedules of reinforcement. Three research questions will be evaluated.

Will stereotypic responding be maintained in the temporal structure typical of adjunctive

behavior during schedules of reinforcement? Previous research shows that adjunctive behavior

occurs in a burst during the post reinforcement pause immediately following the termination of

reinforcement (cf., Falk, 1971; Staddon, 1977). Second, will stereotypic behavior be observed to

occur at an excessive level during schedules of reinforcement as characteristic of adjunctive

behaviors? In other words, when compared to baseline rates, will stereotypic behavior occur at a

higher magnitude under an intermittent schedule of reinforcement? Finally, what is the shape of

the function relating measures of stereotypic responding and ratio size?


Methods

Participants

Individuals participating in the current study were students attending a private special

needs school in New England. Participants were selected following informed consent received

from guardians, and no potential participants were excluded for reasons other than their own

safety. The age of the participants ranged from nine to 19 years of age and each had a diagnosis

of Autism Spectrum Disorders or similar behavioral diagnoses. Participants involved in the

current study had a documented history of engaging in self-stimulatory behaviors (stereotypy).

Participant A was a nine years old male with a diagnosis of Autism who engaged in

motor stereotypy in the form of finger tapping behavior. Participant B was a 15 year old male

with a diagnosis of Pervasive Developmental Disorder – Not Otherwise Specified who engaged

in vocal stereotypy. Participant C was an 18 year old male with a diagnosis of Autism who

engaged in motor stereotypy in the form of hand movements and hitting the palms his hands onto

his thighs. Participant D was a 19 year old male with a diagnosis of Autism who engaged in

motor stereotypy in the form of finger and hand movements. Assessments had been conducted

with each participant that had included functional analysis for participants A, B, and D (Iwata,

1982/1994) and structured ABC analysis for participant C (Iwata, 1995).

Setting

The experimental space was located inside the participants’ school nearby classrooms

and other activity space. The assessment room contained one table and two chairs. The

assessment room was approximately six feet by 9 feet (1.8 meters by 2.7 meters) in size without


windows, but well-lit and ventilated. For participant C, four sessions were conducted at the desk

in his classroom.

Materials

Materials used in the current study consisted of five sets of colored paper sorting cards

(approximately two inches by two inches in size) and a shallow plastic bowl used as a receptacle

for the cards. Each set of colored cards contained the total number of cards required for the ratio

for that specific set (specific to each fixed-ratio (FR) schedule of reinforcement). Yellow cards

were used for the FR10 schedule, green cards were used for the FR20 schedule, red cards were

used for the FR30 schedule, blue cards were used for the FR40 schedule, and black cards were

used for the FR50 schedule.

All sessions were video and audio recorded using a mounted video camera. Data were

collected using pen and paper data collection sheets while viewing recorded video of each

session. Edible items contingent upon completion of the reinforcement schedule were identified

using a paired-stimulus preference assessment (Fisher et al., 1992).

Independent variable

The independent variable was the parameter of the ratio value under a progressive /

regressive ratio schedule for card-sorting. Each ratio completion was followed by the immediate

presentation of edible reinforcement. The ratio value was signaled by the color of the sorting

cards (each color represents a different ratio requirement). Sorting is defined as the participant

moving each card from the pile placed on the table by the experimenter to the receptacle bowl.

The pile contained only the color of the current FR schedule.


Dependent variables

The dependent variables were the frequency and temporal placement of stereotypic

behavior observed to occur during each session as a function of ratio size. From the recorded

frequency the temporal placement of responding, rate of responding, and responses per

reinforcement were derived. Stereotypic responses are defined for each participant below.

Experimental design

The experimental design was a parametric manipulation using progressive and regressive

fixed ratio schedules of reinforcement. The ratio requirement increased (progressive) and

subsequently decreased (regressive) following the completion of the previous schedule series.

The rational for this design was to extend previous research that showed fixed ratio schedules

had the highest probability of post-reinforcement pause (Schlinger, 2008) and that adjunctive

behavior had the highest probability of occurrence during a post-reinforcement pause (Falk,

1971/1972, Webbe, DeWeese, & Malagodi, 1974). For participant A the progressive / regressive

series consisted of FR10, FR20, FR30, FR50, FR30, FR20, and FR10. For participants B, C, and

D the progressive / regressive series consisted of FR10, FR20, FR30, FR40, FR50, FR50, FR40,

FR30, FR20, and FR10.

During each session the experimenter stood behind the seated participant and placed the

colored cards and receptacle bowl simultaneously in front of the participant. No additional

discriminative stimulus or prompting was used to have the participant complete the sorting task.

Card sorting was established pre-experiment as a skill within each participant’s repertoire.

Contingent upon completing the schedule requirements, a reinforcer was delivered, the cards


removed, and the next set of cards was presented. The sessions continued until each schedule

has been presented in both progressive and regressive format.

Control conditions

Following the conclusion of all experimental conditions, control conditions were

conducted. Control conditions were based on procedures used by Lerman et al. (1994) for

Participants B, C, and D (Participant A’s motor stereotypy had been successfully treated and no

longer occurred). Following the conclusion of the experimental sessions, an average duration of

all experimental session for each participant was used. Conditions alternated between: (a)

Condition A; were no reinforcement was delivered to the participant and (b) Condition B, where

a massed reinforcement condition where all the reinforcements available (10 reinforcements)

during an experimental condition were presented at the start of the session. No sorting cards or

directives were presented to the participant during the control conditions. Each participant

received two exposures to each control condition. Participant B alternated between conditions

ABBA, Participant C alternated between conditions ABAB, and Participant D alternated

between conditions BAAB.

Preference assessment

An edible preference assessment was completed with participants A, B, and D. Dietary

restrictions for participant C restricted the use of edible reinforcements to gummy Fruit Snacks

candy. Preference assessment procedures replicated methods discussed by Fisher et al. (1992).

Eight edible items were selected relative to each participant’s caregiver opinion. Each item was

presented in pairs in a forced choice format. The student was then instructed to select one item

and was given access to the selected item. Following consumption of the item, the student was


presented with the next pair. Rank of preference was established by calculating percent

selection. Preference assessments completed at the time of experimentation were completed

with Participants A, B, and D. Figure 1 displays the paired stimulus preferences assessment

outcomes of each participant.

The highest preferred item was available to each participant for each session, however,

the therapist conducting the experimental sessions would grant access to different edible items

prior to the start of the experimental session if the student had requested. For participant B,

Fritos was the highest selected item during the preference assessment but did request to earn

Starburst candy during two of the experimental sessions. Participant A had the highest percent

selection with Swedish Fish and Participant D had the highest percent selection with Pringles

potato chips. Each participant did consume their most frequently selected item as reinforcement

throughout the experimental sessions.

Freetos Cheez-its Potato Chips

Veggie Sticks

Craisens Goldfish Choc. Chips Chips Ahoy0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Edible Items

Pair

ed-s

timu

lus

Item

Sel

ecti

on

Participant B


Pringles M+Ms Cookies Cheez it Choc Chip Goldfish Craisens Veggie Sticks

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Edible Items

Pair

ed-s

timul

us P

erce

nt S

elec

tion

Participant D

Figure 1: Ranking of items presented during each student’s preference assessment.

Functional Analysis

Analog functional analysis based on the methodology discussed by Iwata et al.

(1982/1994) was used to identify variables maintaining stereotypic responding for participants A,

B, and D stereotypic behavior. Results of each functional analysis are displayed in Table 2. The

findings for each participant have been aggregated to show the total percent occurrence of

stereotypy across each functional analysis condition. Results show little differentiation across

conditions for participants A and D and high variability across conditions (with high levels of

responding in no interaction and control conditions) for participant B. Functional analysis

findings suggest that stereotypy had been automatically maintained for participants A, B, and D.

For participant C, an antecedent-behavior-consequence assessment was conducted to suggest

potential occasioning stimuli and reinforcing stimuli (Iwata, 1995). Findings of the ABC data

collection showed that stereotypic responding had been observed to occur when only automatic

reinforcement was available suggesting that stereotypy had been automatically maintained.


Coding procedure

All sessions were conducted by therapists under the supervision of the experimenter.

Data were coded in a manner to protect the anonymity of each participant in the study. Each

participant was randomly assigned a corresponding letter and that participant’s actual name did

not appear on any research materials, including data sheets, videos, and notes throughout the

study. All previously identified materials were maintained securely in a locked drawer in the

experimenter’s office.


1 2 3 40

20

40

60

80

100

Alone Demand

Play Tangible

Att.Pe

rcen

t O

ccu

rren

ce o

f St

ereo

typ

y

Participant A

1 2 3 4 5 60

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

en

t O

ccu

ran

ce o

f V

oca

l Ste

reo

typ

y

Participant B

1 2 3 40

20

40

60

80

100

Sessions

Perc

en

t O

ccu

rrece

of

Ste

reo

typ

y

Participant D

Figure 2: Percent occurrence of stereotypic responding during functional analysis (participants A, B, and D).


Wai

ting

Tran

sitio

n to

Acti

vity

Bath

room

/ H

ygie

ne

Com

pleti

ng W

ork

Inst

ructi

onal

Dem

and

Stim

ulus

Rem

oved

Tran

sitio

n Aw

ay fr

om A

ctivi

ty

Den

ied

Acce

ss

Des

k in

Cla

ssro

om

Hal

lway

Mea

l Tim

e

Bath

room

Mot

or R

oom

Play

grou

nd

Antecedent Environment

0

20

40

60

80

100

Perc

ent O

ccur

ance

of S

tere

otyp

yParticipant C

Figure 3: Structured ABC analysis for Participant C.

Inter Observer Agreement

The observer data were grouped into five second bins and scored according to a

frequency-within interval method. Inter-observer agreement was calculated for each five second

bin by obtaining the occurrence of stereotypic responses recorded by each observer during each

five second bin, dividing the smaller of these two numbers by the larger, and multiplying the

quotient by 100%. These values for individual bins were averaged to generate inter-observer

agreement measures for each participant. Inter observer agreement was collected for 50 percent

of experimental sessions for Participant A with an average agreement of 92 percent, 20 percent

of experimental sessions for Participant B with an average agreement of 83 percent, 30 percent

of experimental sessions with Participant C with and average agreement of 86 percent, and 30

percent of experimental sessions with Participant D with an average agreement of 89 percent.

Procedural integrity


Procedural integrity data were collected by a second observer on the accuracy of the

therapist’s behavior conducting the experimental session. Accuracy was measured in the areas

of delivering the appropriate materials (color cards per schedule) and the timely delivery of

reinforcement (following the completion of each schedule). Procedural integrity was calculated

for each five second bin by observing the correct colored card and that reinforcement was

delivered within five seconds of the completion of the ratio requirement (final card placed in the

bin). Bins were scored as correct or incorrect. Procedural integrity was calculated for each five

second bin by obtaining the occurrence of correct responses recorded by the observer during

each five second bin, dividing the smaller of these two numbers by the larger, and multiplying

the quotient by 100%. Procedural integrity was collected for 50 percent of experimental sessions

for each participant. Participant A had an average integrity score of 100 percent, Participants B

had an average integrity score of 100 percent, Participant C had an average integrity score of 99

percent, and Participant D had an average integrity score of 100 percent.

Results

Each of the participants developed similar patterns of responding under the Progressive /

Regressive schedule of reinforcement. Once initiated under the sorting requirement, responding

continued until all cards were sorted and reinforcement delivered. Following reinforcement

consumption stereotypic responding often occurred and was typically localized to the immediate

post-reinforcement period. The interreinforcement interval increased in direct relationship to

ratio requirement and level of stereotypic responding was a functional relation of ratio size as

described below. Each figure shown below combines both the progressive and regressive

schedule series data into one function.


Figure 4 shows the temporal occurrence of the total frequency of stereotypic responding

across all sessions within the interreinforcement interval for Participant A. Data are shown as

occurring within successive five-second bins following the delivery of reinforcement across all

experimental sessions. Stereotypic responding occurred as a characteristic burst following the

consumption of the reinforcement and decreased in frequency as the interval progressed and the

card sorting task began. Stereotypy occurred at the highest frequency within the first three of the

five-second post-reinforcement intervals. Note that for Participant A only one exposure to FR 50

occurred during each session.

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 390

102030405060708090

Five Second Bins

Freq

uenc

y of S

tere

otyp

y

Figure 4: Participant A frequency of motor stereotypy following reinforcement in 40, five-second bins.

The average interreinforcement interval for Participant A was directly related to ratio size

as shown in Figure 5. The shortest average interreinforcement interval (time) occurred during


the FR 10 ratio (.66 minutes) and the longest average interreinforcement interval (time) occurred

during the FR 50 (3.08 minutes) schedule.

FR10 FR20 FR30 FR500

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Inte

rrei

nfor

cem

ent T

ime

(in m

in)

Figure 5: Participant A average interreinforcement interval over each of four FR values.

Figure 6 shows the levels of stereotypic responding as a function of ratio size (or

indirectly, interreinforcement time) for Participant A. Stereotypic responding increased to an

asymptote at the two highest ratios. This can be contrasted to the function relating rate of

stereotypic responding to ratio size shown in Figure 7. As the ratio size was increased rate of

stereotypic responding increased to a maximum at FR30 and decreased with additional size

increments.


FR10 FR20 FR30 FR500

20406080

100120140160

Free

quen

cy o

f St

ereo

typi

c R

espo

nses

Figure 6: Participant A frequency of motor stereotypy per four FR schedules.

FR 10 FR 20 FR 30 FR 500

50

100

150

200

250

Ster

epty

pic

Resp

onse

s Pe

r M

inut

e

Figure 7: Rate per minute of Participant A motor stereotypy across FR schedules.

The temporal occurrence of stereotypic responding within the interreinforcement interval

summarized across all ratio values for Participants B, C, and D is shown in Figure 8. Data are

shown as occurring within successive five second bins following the delivery of reinforcement

across all experimental sessions. Each data point in the graph represents the total occurrence of

responding in each successive five-second bins following reinforcement. The data show that,

similar to Participant A, stereotypic behavior occurred in a characteristic burst immediately


following reinforcement for Participants B, C, and D and declined over the remainder of inter-

reinforcement interval. Participant B’s stereotypic responding was observed to occur at the

highest levels from the first to the eighth interval before gradually descending to zero responses.

For participant C, the highest level of stereotypy occurred during the second five-second bin and

gradually declined during the remainder of the inter-reinforcement interval. For participant D,

stereotypy increased from the first to the fifth five-second intervals and then rapidly descended

during the remainder of the inter-reinforcement interval.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 290

5

10

15

20

25

30

Freq

uenc

y of

Ste

reot

ypy Participant B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526272829300

5

10

15

20

25

30

Fre

qu

en

cy o

f St

ere

oty

py Participant

C

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132330

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Five-second Bins

Fre

qu

en

cy o

f Ste

reo

typ

y

Participant D

Figure 8: Frequency of stereotypy occurring after reinforcement in five-second bins for Participants B, C, and D.


Figure 9 shows that the average interreinforcement interval for Participants B, C, and D

was directly related to ratio size. For Participant B, the average interreinforcement interval

ranged from .40 minutes at FR 10 to 1.71 minutes at FR 50. For Participant C, the average

interreinforcement interval ranged from .69 minutes at FR 10 to 2.15 minutes at FR 50. For

Participant D, the average interreinforcement interval ranged from .48 minutes at FR 10 to 1.97

minutes at FR 50.

The total number of stereotypic responds per reinforcement as a function of ratio size for

Participants B, C, and D are shown in Figure 10. Stereotypic responding was observed to

increase with increasing ratio requirements across the Progressive and Regressive series for each

Participant. The total frequency of stereotypic responding as a function of ratio size is shown in

Figure 8. Interestingly, the rate of stereotypic responding was related to ratio size in three

different manners for three participants.

Figure 11 shows the average frequency of stereotypic responding for each participant

during sessions with progressive/regressive schedules of reinforcement, as well as sessions of

matched duration with the same number of reinforcers presented at the beginning of the session

and with no reinforcers presented. The latter two conditions serve as controls for the induction of

responding by the intermittent schedules present during the experimental sessions. Note that no

control sessions were conducted for Participant A. For Participants B and D the greatest number

of Stereotypic Responses per Session occurred in the experimental conditions. Conversely,

Participant C had more Stereotypic Responses per Session during the no reinforcement

condition.


FR10 FR20 FR30 FR40 FR500

0.5

1

1.5

2IR

I Min

utes

Participant B


0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

IRI M

inut

es

Participant C


0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

IRI

Min

utes

Participant D

Figure 9: The average interreinforcement interval in minutes for Participants B, C, and D across FR schedules.



20

40

60

80

100

120

Fre

qu

ency

of

Ste

reo

typ

y Participant B


20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Fre

qu

ency

of

Ste

reo

typ

y

Participant C


10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Freq

uenc

y of

Ste

reot

ypy

Participant D

Figure 10: Stereotypic responses per reinforcement for Participants B, C, and D across FR schedules.



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40S

tere

oty

pic

Resp

on

ses

Per

Min

Participant B

FR 10 FR 20 FR 30 FR 40 FR 500

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Ste

reo

typ

ic R

esp

on

ses

Per

Min

FR 10 FR 20 FR 30 FR 40 FR 500

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Ste

reo

typ

ic R

esp

on

ses

Per

Min

Participant D

Figure 11: The rate per minute of stereotypy for Participants B, C, and D across FR schedules.

Participant C


A B C D0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Fixed Ratio

Massed Reinforcement

No Reinforcement

Participants

Aver

age R

espo

nses

Per S

essio

n

No Control Conditions

Figure 12: Experimental (FR schedules), massed reinforcement, and no reinforcement conditions for all participants.

Discussion

The primary goal of the current study was to examine the relationship between levels and

patterns of stereotypic responding by children with autism under a range of ratio schedules of

reinforcement for a concurrent operant response. The results of the present experiment extend

the results of previous research. For each participant the temporal occurrence of stereotypic

responding with respect to the delivery of reinforcement, as well as modulation in the level of


stereotypic responding with changes in the ratio schedule requirement, was similar to that of

various behaviors termed adjunctive or schedule induced (Falk, 1971; Staddon, 1977).

Stereotypic behavior was observed to occur in the characteristic temporal pattern for each

participant as the highest frequency of stereotypic responding was observed to occur following

the delivery and consumption of reinforcement. Stereotypy was observed to quickly reach its

highest level before descending to zero occurences as the interreinforcement interval continued.

This effect was consistent across each participant and is consistent with previous studies

examining stereotypy as adjunctive behavior (Emerson & Howard, 1992; Lerman et al., 1994).

For each participant, the average interreinforcement interval (IRI) increased relative to

the increase in ratio requirement. The average length of IRI during experimental sessions ranged

from a low of .35 minutes during an FR10 for Participant B and a high of 2.31 minutes during a

FR50 for Participant C. The temporal occurrence of stereotypy with respect to reinforcement was

not observed to be sensitive to this change. The same characteristic pattern of adjunctive

behavior was observed during each schedule size.

Similar findings have been reported by Falk (1961, 1966a, 1966b, 1971) when food

deprived rats engaged in polydipsia following food pellet consumption. Stereotypic behavior in

the current study had similar burst characteristics to that of polydipsia following reinforcement

across varied reinforcement schedules. DeWeese (1977) reported similar bursts of hose biting

behavior by monkeys following either food or electric shock presented under a fixed interval

schedule. The common finding across each study suggests that adjunctive behaviors occur when

intermittent scheduled consequences are in place, either food or shock.


Falk (1966) reported systematic changes in the level of polydipsia as the duration of the

fixed-interval schedule of food delivery for lever pressing by food deprived rats was manipulated

across phases. Falk reported that polydipsia was an inverted bitonic function of the

interreinforcement interval, with polydipsia first increasing in level to a maximum then

decreasing as the fixed-interval was made progressively longer. Similar findings have been

reported for aggression in pigeons (Cherek, Thompson, & Heistad, 1971; Flory, 1969), escape in

pigeons (Brown & Flory, 1972), hose-biting (DeWeese, 1977), and stereotypy in humans (e.g.,

Emerson & Howard, 1992). Falk (1971) suggested that this inverted bitonic function relating

level of adjunctive behavior to interreinforcement time is characteristic of adjunctive behavior in

general. Studies examining adjunctive behavior during ratio schedules (e.g., Allen et al., 1981;

Appel, 1963; Dardano, 1973; Hutchinson, Azrin, & Hunt, 1968) have similarly reported that the

level of adjunctive responding is a function of the interreinforcement interval generated by ratio

requirement. However, rather than an inverted bitonic function as suggested by Falk (1971),

adjunctive behavior during ratio schedules of reinforcement iss generally reported to be directly

related to the interreinforcement interval (and ratio requirement). For each of the participants in

the current study, total stereotypic responding increased monotonically or increased to an

asymptote as the ratio requirement was increased. Participants B, C, and D each showed an

increasing level of stereotypic behavior with increases in the ratio requirement. Participant A

showed an increase to a plateau in stereotypic responding. (See Measurement Considerations and

the Shape of the Adjunctive Function below).

The rate of stereotypic responding was related to interreinforcement in a more complex

manner than the total frequency of stereotypic responding per reinforcement (i.e., a magnitude

measure). For Participants A and D, an inverted bitonic function relating rate of stereotypic


responding to ratio requirement (and interreinforcement interval) was observed. For Participant

B, rate of stereotypy increased with increases in the ratio requirement, while rate of stereotypic

responding decreased as the ratio requirement increased for Participant C.

Measurement Considerations

The findings of the current study are similar to previous research (e.g., Allen et al., 1981)

in demonstrating that levels or strength of adjunctive behavior is described differently depending

upon the type of dependent measure employed (time-independent or magnitude measures or

time-dependent rate measures). Allen and colleagues suggested that adjunctive behavior should

not be conceptualized as free operant, but rather a “stimulus bound” phenomena such as

respondent behavior or operant behavior under discrete trial instructional procedures. Assessing

the levels or strength of stimulus-bound behaviors cannot be done using rate of responding

without taking into consideration the rate of presentation of the occasioning events. In the case

of adjunctive behavior such measurement might take the form of responses/min divided by

reinforcers/minute, which reduces to a magnitude measure (responses/reinforcer). Allen et al.

(1981) showed that across a large range of interreinforcement intervals (IRI) generated under a

Regressive Ratio schedule, schedule induced aggression of pigeons was either a monotonically

increasing function or a bitonic function of IRI depending on whether magnitude or rate

measures were used, respectively. The conditional probability of aggression (another time-

independent measure) was also directly related to ratio size (and IRI). Allen and colleagues also

reviewed previous reports from the same laboratory of schedule-induced aggression and drinking

by pigeons under a range of IRIs generated by fixed-interval schedules of food presentation.

Under these parametric studies with fixed-interval schedules, both adjunctive drinking and

aggression were shown to be a bitonic function of IRI using either a magnitude or rate measure.


Allen et al. suggested that a magnitude measure was a more appropriate measure of adjunctive

behavior as it was consistent with probability, and it allowed the distinction of the differing

control of adjunctive behavior by ratio and interval schedules of food presentation.

A Third Class of Behavior

In 1971, Falk suggested that adjunctive behavior represented a third class of behavior

distinguishable from operant or respondent behavior. Classes of behavior are distinguished,

rather than by typography, by the distinct variables controlling their occurrence (Skinner, 1938).

Pigeon key pecks are both elicited under a respondent autoshaping procedure (e.g., Brown and

Jenkins, 1968) and reinforced under operant procedures, making the key peck either respondent

or operant depending upon the controlling variables. Similarly, aggression may be elicited by

shock presentation (e.g., Ulrich & Craine, 1964), reinforced by contingent food (Reynolds,

Catania, and Skinner, 1963), or induced during schedules of reinforcement controlling

concurrent operant responding.

Events during schedules of reinforcement do not elicit adjunctive behavior. As Falk

(1971) noted “…adjunctive behavior is behavior maintained by stimuli whose reinforcing

properties in the situation are derived primarily as a function of schedule parameters governing

the availability of another class of reinforcers”(p.586). Access to engage in adjunctive behavior

acts as reinforcement for additional operant responding (e.g., Cherek, Thompson, and Heistad,

1971); Falk, 1966b). Thus, conditions inherent across a range of intermittent reinforcement

schedules serve as motivational operations (or generating conditionings in the terms of Falk,

1971) for the consequences maintaining adjunctive behavior. In clinical settings, excessive or

unexplained motivation for challenging behavior is a focus of much applied research.


Control Conditions

Following the conclusion of the experimental sessions, an average duration of all

experimental sessions for each participant was used as the duration of each control condition.

Conditions alternated between Condition A: in which no reinforcement was delivered to the

participant and Condition B: in which a massed reinforcement condition where all the

reinforcements available (10) during an experimental condition were presented at the start of the

session. No sorting cards or directives were presented to the participants during the control

conditions. Each participant received two exposures to each control condition. Participant B

alternated between conditions ABBA, Participant C alternated between conditions ABAB, and

Participant D alternated between conditions BAAB. In general, the comparisons of stereotypic

responding during sessions with progressive/regressive ratio schedules with that during control

conditions suggests that stereotypy occurred at a higher frequency during sessions with

intermittent reinforcement. The two control conditions were equated with the experimental

conditions in two manners; by the provision of an equal number of reinforcers to that during the

experimental condition in mass during a session of equal duration to that of the experimental

sessions, as well as provision of no reinforcers during a session of equal duration (Cohen &

Looney, 1984; Emerson & Howard, 1992). Participant A was not exposed to control conditions.

Two of the three remaining participants (B, D) exhibited higher frequency of stereotypy during

intermittent reinforcement conditions than during the control conditions. For Participant C,

stereotypy occurred at the highest frequency during the no reinforcer control condition.

Cohen and Looney (1984) have provided a critical exploration of control conditions

employed to assess the extent that a schedule of reinforcement has induced the occurrence of

behaviors outside of those maintained by that schedule contingency. The authors noted that


comparisons of scheduled reinforcement vs no-reinforcement conditions equated for session

duration and scheduled reinforcement (intermittent) vs massed reinforcement (the delivery of an

equated number of reinforcers at the beginning of the control session) conditions equated for

session duration represent the typical control comparisons. However, Cohen and Looney noted

that comparing a schedule of reinforcement to massed reinforcement in an effort to parse out

reinforcement intermittency is impossible. Even massed reinforcement has intermittency such as

inter-bite intervals, inter feeding times (if the organisms pauses for other behaviors between

bouts of eating), and inter-session intervals. Comparisons of schedule conditions vs no-

reinforcement were considered to serve as control for the presence of the schedule as a unified

collection of variables (intermittency, number of presentation/terminations of food, response

effort, etc.), but unable to distinguish the role of any particular schedule component variables.

Additionally, the authors suggested that any modification of schedule characteristics (e.g., IRI

duration, response requirement, reinforcer magnitude) resulting in systematic variance in level of

emergent behavior would serve as demonstration of the inductive properties of the schedule. In

the current study changes to the IRI showed changes in stereotypic responding that was

consistent across each participant.

It may be noted that control comparisons were characteristic of early experimental

demonstrations of induced behavior (e.g., Azrin, Hutchinson, & Hake, 1966). After numerous

demonstrations of the necessity of the intermittent reinforcement schedule for induction in such

comparisons, later experiments with non-human participants did not include such comparisons.

Experiments examining potential adjunctive behavior in humans (e.g., Emerson & Howard,

1984; Lerman et al. 1994) again included control comparisons as research looked to extend the

phenomena of schedule induction to a new species. Emerson and Howard (1984) suggested an


arbitrary criterion of emergent behavior occurring at 150% of baseline conditions (see above) to

be classified as adjunctive. In the current study, only Participant D approximated (approximately

140%) this criterion. However, two of the three participants exposed to the control conditions

showed higher frequency of stereotypy in the experimental conditions rather than control, each

of the participants demonstrated entrainment of stereotypy during the IRI, and stereotypy was

shown to be a function of IRI (and ratio requirement) for each participant.

Stereotypy in Applied Settings

As noted above, stereotypy is assumed to be automatically reinforced behavior which at

high rates may impair the acquisition and performance of adaptive behavior. Previous research

on the treatment of stereotypy has included sensory extinction (response blocking); (Rincover,

1978), access to tangible items and social attention (Kang, O’Reilly, Rojeski, Blenden, Xu, &

Davis, 2013), brushing therapy (Davis, Durand, & Chan, 2011), response cost (Laprime &

Dittrich, 2014), noncontingent attention and response cost (Athens, Vollmer, Sloman, & St. Peter

Pipkin, 2008), and response interruption and response redirection (Ahearn, Clark, MacDonald,

& Chung, 2007). Treatment results have varied from decreasing stereotypy to socially

significant levels (Ahearn, et al., 2007) to a worsening effect of increasing stereotypy levels

(Davis et al., 2011). In their review of stereotypy intervention literature, Lagrow and Repp

(1984) discussed the finding of ten intervention strategies that included seven aversive

procedures and three positive procedures. Their findings showed that the most common

procedure was response cost (reported in over one third of studies), and that the most effective

procedure was shock. Their conclusion was that the remaining aversive procedures and positive

procedures produced relatively equal effects. This finding suggests an over-reliance on the use

of aversive contingencies by practitioners even though positive procedures are equally effective


when used. Treatment outcomes of procedures that have used sensory extinction in the form of

response blocking (Rincover, 1978) can be attributed to punishment and not extinction (Lerman

and Iwata, 1996). Athens et al. (2008) used a treatment package that included noncontingent

attention, response cost (toy removal), and contingent demands to reduce vocal stereotypy.

Athens and colleges discussed the possibility that the contingent demands functioned as a

punisher or as a warning stimulus for toy removal if vocal stereotypy continued. Previous

research involving treatments to reduce stereotypy rely heavily on the use of punishment. It is

unclear whether any systematic stereotypy treatment has taken into account the potential

inducing effects of a reinforcement schedule for concurrent behaviors.

In the current study, as in previous studies (e.g., Weisler et al., 1988) stereotypic behavior

was observed to be modulated as a function of the schedule of reinforcement. Automatically

reinforced stereotypy is typically a free operant behavior, however, under each ratio schedule

stereotypy was observed to increase with increases in the ratio requirement. The results of

previous studies suggest that manipulations in deprivation for, and magnitude of, reinforcement

might be clinical variables to modulate stereotypy. Perhaps more important, may be the

exchange of fixed or periodic schedules (e.g., FR or FI) for aperiodic schedules of reinforcement

(e.g., VI or VR), as adjunctive responding is more prevalent under fixed rather than variable

reinforcement schedules (e.g., Webbe, DeWeese, and Malagodi, 1974).

Limitations and Future Research

While the current study successfully answered the experimental questions, there are still

multiple directions for future research. One possible direction for future research would be the

use of a change over delay during experimental conditions. In the current study no provision is


made to ensure there was no adventitious reinforcement of stereotypic behavior. To remain

consistent with current experimental procedures, one recommendation is to use a five-second

delay from stereotypy to reinforcement once the ratio requirement has been met. Future research

should also include more exposures to experimental conditions and control conditions. Lerman

et al. (1994) noted that adjunctive behavior was observed to occur relatively earlier in

experiential phases when compared to non-human subjects. While this was also the case in the

current study, it is hypothesized that longer phases would produce even more orderly findings

(particularly for Participant C during the control conditions).

Future research may also look at extending the study to include a treatment phase that

would include variable time schedules. Using the average IRI for each FR schedule,

experimental sessions may be rearranged and reinforcement would be delivered on a variable

interval or variable time schedules. It is likely that pausing following reinforcement would

decrease and the schedule of reinforcement would be less likely to induce adjunctive behavior.

The current study has contributed to the further investigation on the occurrence of

adjunctive behavior. In particular, this study is relevant to translational research: The findings

are consistent with those in basic research with the importance of treatment applications in

applied settings. Applied literature has discussed the pervasive nature of stereotypic behaviors in

individuals with autism and has produced a literature of successful treatment strategies for

practitioners to access. The importance of this study is the findings that suggest a schedule of

reinforcement in place to maintain an operant behavior was also responsible for the induction of

increased rates of stereotypic behavior. Schedules of reinforcement are continuously in use in

applied settings to increase the future probability of socially appropriate behaviors. It is


important for clinicians and practitioners to understand the occurrence of adjunctive behavior

that may increase other potentially interfering behaviors.


References

Ahearn, W.H., Clark, K.M., MacDonald, R.P.F., & Chung, B. (2007). Assessing and treating

vocal stereotypy in children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 263

– 275.

Allen, R.F., Sicignano, A., Webbe, F.M., & Malagodi, E.F. (1981). Induced attack during ratio

schedules of reinforcement: Implications for measurement of adjunctive behaviors.

Quantifications of Steady-State Operant Behaviour. C.M. Bradshaw, E. Szabadi & C.F.

Lowe, Ed. Pg. 385 – 388.

Appel, J.B. (1963). Aversive aspects of a schedule of positive reinforcement. Journal of the

Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 423 – 428.

Athens, E.S., Vollmer, T.R., & Sloman, K.N. (2008). An analysis of vocal stereotypy and

treatment fading. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 291 – 297.

Azrin, N.H., Hutchinson, R.R. & Hake, D.F. (1966). Extinction-induced aggression. Journal of

the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 9, 191 – 204.

Boyd, B.A., McDonough, S.G. & Bodfish, J.W. (2012). Evidence-based behavioral

interventions for repetitive behaviors in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental

Disorders, 42(6), 1236 – 1248.

Brown, T.G. & Flory, R.K. (1972). Schedule-induced escape from fixed-interval reinforcement.

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 17, 395 – 403.


Cherek, D.R., Thompson, T., & Heistad, G.T. (1973). Responding maintained by the

opportunity to attack during an interval food reinforcement schedule. Journal of the


Davis, T.N., Durand, S., & Chan, J.M. (2011). The effects of a brushing procedure on

stereotypical behavior. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5, 1053 – 1058.

Dardano, J.F. (1973). Self-imposed timeouts under increasing response requirements. Journal of

the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 19, 269 – 287.

DeWeese, J. (1977). Schedule-induced biting under fixed-interval schedules of food or electric-

shock presentation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 27, 419 – 431.

Dove, L.D., Rashotte, M.E., & Katz, H.N. (1974). Development and maintenance of attack in

pigeons during variable-interval reinforcement of key pecking. Journal of the


Emerson, E. & Howard, D. (1992). Schedule-induced behavior. Research in Developmental

Disabilities, 13, 335 – 361.

Falk, J.L.(1961). Production of polydipsia in normal rats by an intermittent food schedule.

Science, 133, 195 – 196.

Falk, J.L. (1966). The motivational properties of schedule-induced polydipsia. Journal of the


Falk, J.L. (1966). Schedule-induced polydipsia as a function of fixed interval length. Journal of

the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 9, 37 - 39.


Falk, J.L. (1971). The nature and determinants of adjunctive behavior. Physiology and Behavior,

6, 577 – 588.

Falk, J.L. (1972). The nature and determinates of adjunctive behavior. In R.M. Gilbert & J.D.

Keehn (Eds.) Schedule effects (pp. 148 – 173). University of Toronto Press, Canada.

Ferster, C.B. & Skinner, B.F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton –

Century – Crofts.

Fisher, W., Piazza, C.C., Bowman, L.G., Hagopian, L.P., Owens, J.C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A

comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and

profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 491 – 498.

Foster, W.S. (1978). Adjunctive behavior: An under-reported phenomenon in applied behavior

analysis? Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 545 – 546.

Frederiksen, L.W. & Peterson, G.L. (1974). Schedule-induced aggression in nursery school

children. The Psychological Record, 24, 343 – 351.

Griffiths, R.R. & Thompson, T. (1973). The post-reinforcement pause: A misnomer. The

Psychological Record, 23, 229 – 235.

Hollis, J.H. (1973). “Superstition”: The effects of independent and contingent events on free

operant responses in retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 77 (5),

585 – 596.

Hutchinson, R.R., Azrin, N.H., & Hunt, G.M. (1968). Attack produced by intermittent

reinforcement of a concurrent operant response. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of

Behavior, 11, 485 – 495.


Iwata, B. (1995). Structured ABC Analysis Form. Tallahassee: The Florida Center on Self-

Injury.

Iwata, B., Dorsey, M.F., Slifer, K.J., Bauman, K.E., & Richman, G.S. (1982). Towards a

functional analysis of self-injury. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental

Disabilities, 2, 3-20.

Kang, S., O’Reilly, M., Rojeski, L., Blenden, K., Xu, Z., Davis, T., Sigafoos, J., & Lancioni, G.

(2013). Effects of tangible and social reinforcers of skill acquisition, stereotyped

behavior, and task engagement in three children with autism spectrum disorders.

Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 739 – 744.

Kupfer, A.S., Allen, R. & Malagodi, E.F. (2008). Induced attack during fixed-ratio and

matched-time schedules of food presentation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of

Behavior, 89, 31 – 48.

LaGrow, S.J., & Repp, A.C. (1984). Stereotypic responding: A review of intervention research.

American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88, 595 – 609.

Laprime, A.P., & Dittrich, G.A. (2014). An Evaluation of a Treatment Package Consisting of

Discrimination Training and Differential Reinforcement with Response Cost and a Social

Story on Vocal Stereotypy for a Preschooler with Autism in a Preschool Classroom.

Education and Treatment of Children, 37, 407 – 430.

Lerman, D.C., & Iwata, B.A. (1996). Developing a technology for the use of operant extinction

in clinical settings: An examination of basic and applied research. The Journal of

Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 345 – 382.


Lerman, D.C., Iwata, B.A., Zarcone, J.R. & Ringdahl, J. (1994). Assessment of stereotypic and

self-injurious behavior as adjunctive responses. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,

27, 715 – 728.

Levitsky, D. & Collier, G. (1968). Schedule-induced wheel running. Physiological Behavior, 3,

571 – 573.

Mace, F.C. & Wacker, D.P. (1994). Toward a greater integration of basic and applied behavioral

research: An introduction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 569 – 574.

Magyar, R.L. & Malagodi, E.F. (1980). Measurement and development of schedule-induced

drinking in pigeons. Physiology and Behavior, 25, 245 – 251.

Mendelson, J., & Chillag, D. (1970). Schedule-induced air licking in rats. Physiological

Behavior, 5, 535 – 537.

Michelotti, J., Charman, T., Slonims, V. & Baird, G. (2002). Follow-up of children with

language delay and features of autism from preschool years to middle childhood.

Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 44, 812 – 819.

Powell, R.W. (1968). The effect of small sequential changes in fixed-ratio size upon the post-

reinforcement pause. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 11, 589 – 593.

Reynolds, G.S., Catania, A.C., & Skinner, B.F. (1963). Conditioned and unconditioned

aggression in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 73 – 74.

Rincover, A. (1978). Sensory extinction: A procedure form eliminating self-stimulatory

behavior in developmentally disabled children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,

6, 299 – 310.


Schlinger, H.D., Derenne, A. & Baron, A. (2008). What 50 years of research tell us about

pausing under ratio schedules of reinforcement. The Behavior Analyst, 31, 39 – 60.

Schuster, C.R., & Woods, J.H. (1966). Schedule-induced polydipsia in the monkey.

Psychological Reports, 19, 823 – 828.

Shanab, M.E. & Peterson, J.L. (1969). Polydipsia in the pigeon. Psychonomic Science,15, 51 –

52.

Skinner, B.F. (1938). The Behavior of Organisms. Copley Publishing Group.

Staddon, J.E.R. (1977). Schedule-induced behavior. In W.K. Honig & J.E.R. Staddon (Eds.),

Handbook of Operant Behavior (pp. 125 – 152). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ulrich, R.E. & Craine, W.H. (1964). Behavior: Persistence of shock-induced aggression.

Science, 143, 971 – 973.

Villarreal, J. Schedule-induced pica. Paper read at Eastern Psychology Association, Boston,

April, 1967.

Wallace, M., Sanson, A. & Singer, G. (1978). Adjunctive behavior in human on a food delivery

schedule. Physiology & Behavior, 20, 203 – 204.

Webbe, F.M., DeWeese, J., & Malagodi, E.F. (1974). Induced attack during multiple fixed-

ratio, variable-ratio schedules of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of

Behavior, 22, 187 – 206.


Wieseler, N.A., Hanson, R.H., Chamberlain, T.P. & Thompson, T. (1988). Stereotypic behavior

of mentally retarded adults adjunctive to a positive reinforcement schedule. Research in

Developmental Disabilities, 9, 393 – 403.

beatleyweb.simmons.edu€¦ · web vieweach set of colored cards contained the total number of...

Documents