Describe Two Separate Behaviors That Would Be Good Candidate

Describe Two Separate Behaviors That Would Be Good Candidates For The

Describe two separate behaviors that would be good candidates for the use of an antecedent intervention through either the use of Non-Contingent Reinforcement (NCR) or the High Probability Request Sequence (HPRS). For each behavior, discuss the specifics of how you would use the antecedent intervention to change the behavior, and include details regarding whether or not the method of change which you selected used either abolishing operations or establishing operations, and why. Finally, describe how unintended consequences may arise when using antecedent interventions, any ethical, legal, individual, practical and/or social validity considerations that are unique to these approaches to behavior change, and why these methods of change are often combined with other intervention strategies.

Paper For Above instruction

Behavior analysis offers a nuanced array of strategies tailored to modify specific behaviors, particularly through antecedent interventions such as Non-Contingent Reinforcement (NCR) and the High Probability Request Sequence (HPRS). These approaches are often selected based on the function of the behavior, environmental context, and individual needs. This discussion explores two distinct behaviors suitable for these interventions, their implementation specifics, the role of abolishing and establishing operations, potential unintended consequences, and the broader ethical and practical considerations surrounding their use.

Behavior 1: Noncompliance in a Classroom Setting

One behavior that can effectively be targeted using NCR is noncompliance among students in a classroom. Noncompliance may manifest as a student refusing to follow directions or ignoring requests from the teacher, which can hinder classroom management and learning. Applying NCR involves providing reinforcement on a time-based schedule independent of the student’s specific behaviors, thereby reducing the likelihood that noncompliance is maintained by escape or avoidance functions. For instance, the teacher might deliver frequent, non-contingent praise or access to preferred items at regular intervals, regardless of student behavior.

In implementing NCR for this behavior, an establishing operation (EO), such as prior instruction or demand, increases the student's motivation to escape tasks, which can escalate noncompliance if reinforcement is not provided preventively. By delivering reinforcement regardless of compliance, the intervention diminishes the EO's impact, potentially decreasing noncompliance over time. The goal is to weaken the behavior maintained by escape, replacing it with a context where compliance becomes more likely because the antecedent conditions are managed proactively.

The use of NCR aims to “abolish” the EO that functions to maintain noncompliance by providing a consistent, enriching environment where escape is no longer an effective strategy to get reinforcement. This interruption of the escape-maintained behavior reduces the likelihood of noncompliance, especially if combined with teaching functional communication skills.

Behavior 2: Disruptive Vocalizations in a Home Setting

The second behavior involves disruptive vocalizations, such as yelling or constant talking, initiated by a child at home to gain attention or escape from tasks. A suitable antecedent intervention here is the High Probability Request Sequence (HPRS), which involves prompting a series of easy, high-probability requests that are likely to be compliant with, followed by a more difficult or favored request.

Using HPRS in this context requires selecting requests that the child is likely to perform successfully, such as “put the toy away” or “sit down,” creating a positive momentum before requesting an activity or behavior that might usually provoke disruptive vocalizations. This sequence leverages an established operation (EO) by priming the child's success and attentional motivation, thereby establishing a behavioral momentum that makes compliance more probable and undesirable vocalizations less likely.

The HPRS functions by establishing a positive antecedent context that increases the likelihood of adaptive behavior and reduces disruptive vocalizations. It introduces a series of antecedents—easy, high-probability requests—that set the occasion for compliance, which then transforms the environment into one where more appropriate behaviors are reinforced and reinforced responses build a new establishing operation (EO) for cooperative behavior.

Unintended Consequences and Ethical Considerations

Despite their effectiveness, antecedent interventions such as NCR and HPRS can produce unintended consequences. For example, NCR may inadvertently reinforce inappropriate behaviors if reinforcement is not carefully timed or if the individual begins to rely heavily on external reinforcement, thereby diminishing intrinsic motivation or leading to overdependence on reinforcement schedules. Additionally, indiscriminate reinforcement could inadvertently reinforce unrelated or harmful behaviors if the reinforcers are not well controlled.

Similarly, HPRS might lead to dependency on prompts or create an expectation for specified antecedents, potentially reducing spontaneity and independence over time. If the high-probability requests are not carefully selected or are perceived as controlling, they can result in frustration, reduced motivation, or resistance from the individual.

Ethically, these interventions must respect the dignity, autonomy, and individual preferences of the person. Ensuring that reinforcers are appropriate and that interventions are person-centered is crucial. Legally, practitioners should adhere to confidentiality and informed consent guidelines, especially when interventions are applied in settings such as schools or clinical environments.

Practical concerns include the need for consistent implementation and staff training. Social validity must also be considered; it is essential that the interventions are socially acceptable and positively perceived by clients, families, and educators. These interventions are often combined with other strategies, such as functional communication training or positive behavioral supports, to enhance effectiveness and promote generalization and maintenance of behavior change.

Conclusion

In conclusion, antecedent interventions like NCR and HPRS can be powerful tools for modifying specific behaviors when appropriately selected and carefully implemented. Their success depends on understanding the function of the behavior, the role of operations that influence motivation, and potential unintended side effects. Ethical, legal, and social considerations are paramount to ensure that interventions are not only effective but also respectful and acceptable to individuals. Combining these methods with other strategies can optimize outcomes and promote durable, socially valid behavior change.

References

  • Astor, R. A., & Fredrick, L. D. (2011). Functional Behavioral Assessment and Intervention. Guilford Publications.
  • Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied Behavior Analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson.
  • Luiselli, J. K., Russo, D. C., & Filcheck, H. (2014). Functional Behavioral Assessment, Intervention, and Litigation: A Practical Guide. Springer.
  • Matson, J. L., & Boisjoli, J. A. (2017). Strategies for Developing Social Skills. Springer.
  • Michael, J. (2004). Analyzing the Effectiveness of Behavioral Interventions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37(3), 347-365.
  • Reynolds, S. (2011). Functional analysis methodology in applied settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(2), 351-368.
  • Santos, A., & McComas, J. (2005). Using noncontingent reinforcement to decrease problem behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Interventions, 20(4), 243-257.
  • Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-based practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 31(3), 351-380.
  • Wilkinson, C., & Shook, A. (2011). Antecedent control strategies. In L. C. A. Mellor & J. K. Orlando (Eds.), Behavior modification: Principles and procedures (pp. 145-165). Routledge.
  • Yell, M., Rozalski, M., & Rogers, D. (2018). Legal and ethical issues in special education. Pearson.

Related Assignments