The Effects Of A High Probability Instruction Sequence And R

The Effects Of A High Probability Instruction Sequenceand Response In

Drawn from a study examining methods to enhance compliance in children, this paper investigates the impact of a high-probability (high-p) instruction sequence and a fixed-time (FT) schedule of reinforcement on child compliance. The research compares these approaches to understand better how antecedent manipulations and reinforcement schedules influence compliance behaviors in typically developing children. The findings have significant implications for behavioral interventions, especially in settings where physical contact is undesirable or impractical.

Paper For Above instruction

Enhancing compliance in children remains a fundamental goal across behavioral, educational, and clinical domains. Traditional methods often involve response-dependent reinforcement strategies, but recent research explores antecedent manipulations that could independently influence compliance rates. Two such methods—high-probability (high-p) instruction sequences and fixed-time (FT) schedules—offer promising avenues for fostering compliance without relying solely on immediate response-dependent reinforcement.

The high-probability instruction sequence is a behavioral technique rooted in the principles of behavioral momentum theory. Originally described by Mace et al. (1988), this procedure involves presenting several instructions with a high likelihood of compliance prior to issuing a low-probability (low-p) instruction. Each compliance is reinforced, often with praise or tangible reinforcers, which increases the likelihood that the subsequent low-p instruction will be followed. This sequence effectively creates a behavioral momentum that facilitates compliance to less preferred or more challenging instructions (Lalli et al., 1999). Significantly, a major advantage of this approach is that it obviates the need for physical contact, making it especially suitable for children with physical limitations or in settings where physical prompts are restricted (Mace & Belfiore, 1990).

Conversely, the fixed-time (FT) schedule involves delivering reinforcement at predetermined intervals regardless of the child's specific behavior (Nevin, 1996). When combined with a signaling cue, such as an auditory tone or a specific phrase, the FT schedule can set the occasion for expected reinforcement, thereby increasing overall compliance even in the absence of response contingency. For example, in the current study, the FT schedule was arranged to produce reinforcement approximately every 10 seconds, comparable to the reinforcement density during the high-p instruction sequence. The FT approach also signifies the onset of an extinction phase where reinforcement is withheld, allowing researchers to observe the persistence or decline of compliance behaviors under different schedules (Carr, Nicolson, & Higbee, 2000).

This investigation compared the efficacy of these two antecedent and reinforcement strategies in increasing compliance among two typically developing boys, Joey and Ashton, aged 2 and 3 years respectively. The study employed a multielement experimental design with a reversal component across multiple baseline conditions, enabling the comparison of compliance rates under each condition while controlling for potential confounding variables. Both the high-p instruction sequence and FT schedules demonstrated notable increases in compliance during treatment phases compared to baseline, suggesting that antecedent manipulations can significantly influence compliance independently or in conjunction with reinforcement density (Mace et al., 1988).

The high-p instruction sequence primarily capitalizes on antecedent structure to establish a behavioral momentum. By issuing a series of high-probability instructions, the child experiences successive successes, which elevate the overall probability of compliance. This is consistent with the momentum model of behavior, which posits that behaviors reinforced in the presence of certain stimuli tend to persist when those stimuli are present (Nevin, 1996). Empirical evidence during the study indicated that compliance to low-p instructions improved substantially during the high-p sequence, reaching near-perfect levels in some cases. Notably, these levels persisted during the FT schedules, even when reinforcement was delivered on a non-response contingent basis, indicating that the antecedent manipulation alone might establish a behavioral pattern sufficiently robust to sustain compliance (Lalli et al., 1999).

On the other hand, the FT schedule, when signaled appropriately, created an environment where reinforcement was predictable, and compliance was indirectly reinforced through the environment rather than through immediate response. This schedule alleviated the necessity for physical prompts or response contingencies at the moment of instruction, potentially reducing demand-related resistance or escape behaviors. The observed data demonstrated that compliance rates substantially increased during FT phases, often surpassing those during the high-p sequence, especially for Jo-ey, where compliance rose from a baseline average of 5% to over 80%. These outcomes suggest that reinforcement density, operationalized through FT schedules, is a powerful determinant of compliance, potentially more so than the antecedent structure alone.

The extinction phase, characterized by withholding reinforcement for compliance, resulted in a decline of compliance behaviors for both children, highlighting the behavior's dependence on reinforcement history. Importantly, reintroduction of the FT schedule after extinction restored compliance levels close to previous peaks, emphasizing the robustness of reinforcement-based procedures and the importance of maintaining consistent reinforcement contingencies (Nevin et al., 1990). These findings underscore that while antecedent manipulations like high-p instruction sequences can facilitate compliance, reinforcement contingencies remain a vital component in maintaining such behaviors over time.

The implications of this research extend across multiple domains. In clinical settings, especially in behavioral interventions for children with developmental or behavioral challenges, antecedent strategies such as high-p instruction sequences could serve as effective, non-invasive means to increase compliance without physical prompts. They are particularly advantageous where safety or policy restrict physical contact. Similarly, FT schedules can function as reliable, response-independent reinforcement systems that promote compliance without the need for immediate response-contingent reinforcement, reducing the demand on caregivers or therapists.

However, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the study involved only two participants, limiting generalizability. Further research involving larger samples and varied populations could provide more definitive evidence. Second, the procedures utilized relatively simple, discrete responses, which may not directly translate to complex or chained behaviors. Third, the use of praise and edible reinforcement in all conditions complicates the attribution of increased compliance solely to antecedent manipulations; repeated contact with reinforcers could have a strengthening effect independent of antecedent arrangements (Carr, Newsom, & Binkoff, 1976).

Future research should explore the differential effects of these strategies on more complex behaviors, across diverse populations, and in naturalistic settings. Additionally, investigations into the combined use of high-p instruction sequences and FT schedules could illuminate potential synergistic effects. Longitudinal studies could further assess the maintenance of compliance behaviors over extended periods without reinforcement, informing best practices in applied settings.

In conclusion, the current study adds to a growing body of evidence supporting the use of antecedent manipulations and reinforcement schedules to increase compliance in children. Both high-p instruction sequences and FT schedules demonstrate significant promise as non-invasive, effective strategies for augmenting compliance and managing challenging behaviors. Integrating these approaches into clinical practice could improve intervention outcomes and foster developmentally appropriate, cooperative behaviors in children across various settings.

References

  • Carr, E. G., Newsom, C. D., & Binkoff, J. A. (1976). Stimulus control of self-destructive behavior in a psychotic child. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 4, 139–153.
  • Carroll, R. A., & Nievar, A. M. (2014). The role of antecedent interventions in promoting compliance in young children. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 36, 1–16.
  • Lalli, J. S., Vollmer, T. R., Progar, P. R., Wright, C., Borrero, J., & Daniel, D., et al. (1999). Competition between positive and negative reinforcement in the treatment of escape behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 285–296.
  • Mace, F. C., & Belfiore, P. (1990). Behavioral momentum in the treatment of escape-motivated stereotypy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 507–514.
  • Mace, F. C., Hock, M. L., Lalli, J. S., West, B. J., Belfiore, P., & Pinter, P., et al. (1988). Behavior of momentum in the treatment of noncompliance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 123–141.
  • Nevin, J. A. (1996). The momentum of compliance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 535–547.
  • Nevin, J. A., Tota, M. E., Torquato, R. D., & Shull, R. L. (1990). Alternative reinforcement increases resistance to change: Pavlovian or operant contingencies? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 53, 359–379.
  • Yoder, P. J., & Stone, W. (2006). Evidence-based practices for children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36, 330–345.
  • Wolfe, A. L., & Gostic, L. (2001). Antecedent strategies for increasing compliance in young children. Journal of Behavioral Interventions, 16, 237–248.

Related Assignments