Reduction of dangerously aggressive behavior in a severely retarded resident through a combination of positive reinforcement procedures

A severely retarded resident was released from a timeout chair only occasionally for brief periods of time. Under the timeout contingency alone, the subject made a choke response within minutes of being released. Attention, such as hugs, smiles, and candy was then increased, first by providing it non-contingently and continuously as long as there were no aggressive responses and then, by making it contingent upon incompatible responses. Under conditions of timeout plus increased attention, choking decreased aburptly. Grabbing responses, which increased when choking was reduced, were also reduced under conditions of timeout plus attention. Unrestrained time was gradually increased and all extra attention, i.e., more scheduled attention than provided other residents, was gradually withdrawn. When the resident was unrestrained all day and all extra attention was withdrawn, grabs and, to a lesser extent, chokes increased. Both were again reduced to a manageable level by scheduling several brief periods of attention each day. Hence, the program resulted in quick reductions that endured when the program was largely withdrawn. The changes in aggressive responding as a function of the presence and absence of extra attention suggest the importance of extra “positive reinforcement” in programs based upon positive reinforcement procedures and dealing with retarded residents for whom positive reinforcers may be scarce

Analysis of the control exerted by a complex cooperation procedure

The study examined the effects of the availability of a non-cooperative response on cooperative responding when cooperation did not have to result in an equal distribution of work or reinforcers. Also, an attempt was made to determine if the cooperative responding was under the control of the cooperation procedure. Pairs of institutionalized retardates were tested in full view of each other. For each subject, reinforcers (money) were contingent upon responses on each of two panels: (1) a matching panel for working matching-to-sample problems, and (2) a sample panel for producing the sample stimulus. The matching panels of the two subjects were 6 m apart, but a subject's sample panel could be placed at different distances from his matching panel. For each subject, either his own or his partner's sample panel could be nearest his matching panel such that less walking was required to reach one sample panel than the other. Subjects could work either individually, by producing their own sample stimulus, or cooperatively, by producing the sample stimulus for their partner. Subjects selected whichever solution involved the least amount of walking. The importance of testing for control by the cooperation procedure was indicated by the findings that cooperative-like responses were not always under the control of the cooperation procedure

Effects of the difference between self and coactor scores upon the audit responses that allow access to these scores

An audit response allows access to an existing score from a subject's own performance (self audit) or from his coactor's performance (coactor audit). A previous study found that social stimuli (coactor present) increased audits relative to a non-social (no coactor) condition. The increase, designated a social-stimulus effect, was found to be due more to the coactor's score than to his mere presence. This finding suggested that the difference between self and coactor scores might affect the size of the social-stimulus effect. In the present study, six pairs of human subjects matched-to-sample for points that were exchangeable for money. During a session, matching-to-sample problems were distributed so that a subject's score was ahead, behind, or about even with his coactor's score. The even condition produced the largest social-stimulus effects, i.e., the most audits that could not be attributed to non-social variables such as time or number of problems. The even condition may have produced the largest social-stimulus effects because it was the only condition where the major social reinforcer (being ahead) could be both present or absent and, consequently, the even condition was the only one where audits had a discriminative function with respect to the presence of the major social reinforcer