z-logo
Premium
A laboratory comparison of two variations of differential‐reinforcement‐of‐low‐rate procedures
Author(s) -
Jessel Joshua,
Borrero John C.
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
journal of applied behavior analysis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.1
H-Index - 76
eISSN - 1938-3703
pISSN - 0021-8855
DOI - 10.1002/jaba.114
Subject(s) - reinforcement , psychology , differential reinforcement , differential (mechanical device) , developmental psychology , social psychology , engineering , aerospace engineering
We compared 2 variations of differential‐reinforcement‐of‐low‐rate (DRL) procedures: spaced‐responding DRL, in which a reinforcer was delivered contingent on each response if a specified interval had passed since the last response, and full‐session DRL, in which a reinforcer was presented at the end of an interval if the response rate was below criterion within the specified interval. We used a human‐operant procedure and analyzed within‐session responding to assess any similarities or differences between procedures. Data revealed a positive contingency between responding and reinforcement under the spaced‐responding DRL schedule and a negative contingency under the full‐session DRL schedule. Furthermore, 60% of the participants discontinued responding by the last full‐session DRL session. Implications for the appropriate procedural and taxonomical usage of both DRL schedules are discussed.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here