For this discussion you must read the article on high-p request sequence. Define high-p request sequence. Have you ever tried high-p requests or do you think you would ever try high-p requests? Do you think this intervention would work for you to increase compliance among your young friends and/or relatives when you ask them to do things like picking up their toys, trash, etc.? If yes, why? If no, why?
ARTICLE ATTATCHED
100-200 WORDS. DUE 10/26/22 11:59 PM EST
THE EFFECTS OF A HIGH-PROBABILITY INSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
AND RESPONSE-INDEPENDENT REINFORCER
DELIVERY ON CHILD COMPLIANCE
CHRYSTIN BULLOCK AND MATTHEW P. NORMAND
FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
We compared the effects of a high-probability (high-p) instruction sequence and a fixed-time
(FT) schedule of reinforcement on the compliance of 2 typically developing children. A
multielement experimental design with a reversal component was implemented according to
a multiple baseline across participants arrangement. Both the high-p and FT conditions resulted
in increased compliance for both participants during the multielement sessions. These results
suggest that it may be possible to increase compliance without a response requirement of the type
arranged in the high-p instruction sequence.
DESCRIPTORS: behavioral momentum, compliance, high-probability instruction sequence, fixed-time schedule
_______________________________________________________________________________
In 1988, Mace et al. reported a series of five
experiments that evaluated the effects of a high
probability (high-p) instruction sequence on
compliance to low-probability (low-p) instructions. A high-p instruction sequence involves
the issuance of several instructions with which
a participant is likely to comply immediately
prior to the issuance of an instruction with
which the participant is unlikely to comply.
Praise or some other potential reinforcer is
delivered following each instance of compliance. One major advantage of the high-p
procedure is that physical contact with the
learner is unnecessary. This is especially beneficial when working with individuals whose size
or strength makes physical contact dangerous or
in situations in which formal restrictions exist
with respect to the use of physical contact. Mace
et al. reported that the high-p instruction
sequence improved compliance rates, latency
to task initiation, and total task duration across
all five experiments, and subsequent research
has mostly supported these findings (e.g., Mace
& Belfiore, 1990).
However, it is possible that compliance to
low-p instructions can be increased without
a response requirement like the one in the highp instruction sequence. Although Mace et al.
(1988) did not report increased compliance
following conditions in which positive statements were delivered independent of participant responding, other researchers have reported such increases using similar procedures.
For example, E. G. Carr, Newsom, and Binkoff
(1976) reported increased compliance following
the reading of humorous stories during therapy
sessions, and Kennedy, Itkonen, and Lindquist
(1995) increased compliance by making pleasant comments prior to the issuance of low-p
instructions.
The present study was designed to assess
whether compliance could be increased via the
delivery of preferred stimuli prior to the
issuance of a low-p instruction. In doing so,
a fixed-ratio (FR) schedule of reinforcement
(with no antecedent manipulation), a high-p
instruction sequence, and a fixed-time (FT)
schedule of reinforcement that signaled the
onset of an FR 1 schedule of reinforcement for
compliance were evaluated.
This paper is based on research submitted by the first
author in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
MS degree at the Florida Institute of Technology. We
thank Eb Blakely for his helpful comments on an earlier
version of this manuscript.
Please address correspondence to Matthew Normand,
School of Psychology, Florida Institute of Technology,
150 W. University Blvd., Melbourne, Florida 32901 (email: [email protected]).
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2006.115-05
JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2006, 39, 495–499 NUMBER 4 (WINTER 2006)
495
METHOD
Participants and Setting
Two typically developing boys, Joey (age
2 years) and Ashton (age 3 years), were selected
based on their ability to follow vocal instructions, parent permission, and their prebaseline
responses to a variety of simple instructions.
Each participant was observed to comply with
at least 15 instructions that required a simple
and discrete response and not to comply with at
least five other similar instructions. All sessions
took place in designated areas of the participants’ homes. The experimenter, the participant, and one observer were present during the
experimental sessions.
Response Definitions and Measurement
The dependent measure was the percentage
of low-p instructions with which each participant complied (see Table 1). The low-p
instructions were defined as instructions issued
by the experimenter with which participants
never complied during a 20-trial prebaseline
assessment. This assessment involved presenting
each instruction from a parent-generated list of
potential low-p and high-p instructions a total
of 20 times. The high-p instructions were those
that resulted in compliance on every trial.
Compliance was defined as the initiation of
a response within 10 s of the stated instruction
and total task completion within 60 s of task
initiation. Percentage compliance was calculated
by dividing the number of compliant responses
to low-p instructions by the total number of
low-p instructions issued and multiplying by
100%.
Interobserver Agreement and Integrity of the
Independent Variable
For 33% of all sessions, a second observer
independently scored the percentage of compliance to low-p instructions. Interobserver agreement was calculated by dividing the number of
agreements by the number of agreements plus
disagreements for all trials and multiplying by
100%. Agreements were 100% across all
conditions for both participants. In addition,
an independent observer scored experimenter
behavior for 33% of randomly selected sessions
during the high-p instruction sequence and the
FT components. Correct performance of the
high-p instruction sequence required the delivery of the reinforcer following each instance
of compliance to a high-p instruction. For the
FT condition, correct performance required the
delivery of three reinforcers approximately once
every 10 s. Integrity ratings were 100% across
all conditions for both participants.
Experimental Design
The experimental conditions were presented
according to a multielement design and were
introduced across participants in a multiple
baseline arrangement. The conditions were as
follows: baseline; multielement, which consisted
of (a) a baseline condition, (b) a high-p
instruction sequence, and (c) an FT condition;
Table 1
High-p and Low-p Instructions Used for Each Participant
Participant Low p High p
Joey Put away your toy. Do this [clap hands, arms up, tap leg].
Come here. Touch [body part].
Put down the [item]. Give me [color].
Sit down. What color?
What’s your name?
Ashton Take a bite of [food]. Do this [clap hands, arms up, tap leg].
Sit down. Touch [body part].
Go to your room. Give me [color].
What color?
Give me five.
496 CHRYSTIN BULLOCK and MATTHEW P. NORMAND
and an FT condition. An extinction condition
was included following the FT sessions, in
which reinforcement was withheld for compliance; after this, the FT condition was reintroduced.
Procedure
Stimulus preference assessment. Prior to the
start of baseline sessions, a brief stimulus
preference assessment (J. E. Carr, Nicolson, &
Higbee, 2000) was conducted to determine
a pool of potential edible reinforcers that could
be used. Edible items were selected because they
could be easily delivered and quickly consumed.
The use of edible items also made the removal
of a preferred item unnecessary, thereby increasing the efficiency of the procedure and
minimizing the likelihood of problem behavior
resulting from the removal of a preferred item
or termination of a preferred activity. Each trial
of each condition began by asking the child to
choose between two of the edible items
identified as most preferred during the stimulus
preference assessment.
Baseline. The experimenter was present in the
room with the participant at a distance of
approximately 1.5 m. A timer sounded every
30 s, prompting the experimenter to issue an
instruction. The experimenter first established
eye contact with the participant and then issued
a low-p instruction. If the participant complied
with the instruction, a small food item was
delivered along with praise.
High-p instruction sequence. The high-p instruction sequence involved the issuance of
three high-p instructions (one every 10 s)
followed by a low-p instruction approximately
10 s after the last high-p instruction. Compliance to each of the high-p instructions was
followed by the delivery of a preferred edible
item and praise. If the low-p instruction resulted
in compliance, a preferred edible item was
immediately delivered along with praise. If at
any time the participant failed to comply with
a high-p instruction, the trial was ended.
FT condition. An FT 10-s reinforcement
schedule was arranged that was comparable to
the average schedule of food delivery in the
high-p condition. The completion of the FT
schedule signaled the onset of an FR 1 schedule
for compliance to the low-p instruction. The
edible item was the same or similar to that
which had been delivered in the momentum
phase. The experimenter said ‘‘here,’’ ‘‘here you
go,’’ or a similar phrase to gain the participant’s
attention prior to delivering the preferred item
and to counterbalance the attention given in
issuing the high-p instructions in the high-p
condition. A preferred edible item and praise
followed each instance of compliance.
Extinction. This condition was identical to
the baseline condition except that there were no
programmed consequences for compliance.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figure 1 depicts the percentage of compliance to low-p instructions for the 2 participants
during each session across all phases of the
study. For both participants, overall compliance
to low-p instructions increased relative to the
initial baseline performance in the FT component of the multielement condition and was
maintained during the FT-alone condition. For
Ashton, compliance to low-p instructions
during the initial baseline sessions averaged
4%. During the multielement phase, his
compliance averaged 58% during the baseline
condition, 81% in the high-p condition, and
85% in the FT condition. When the FT
condition was implemented alone, compliance
to low-p instructions was 100%. During
extinction, Ashton’s percentage of compliance
fell to an average of 19%. When the FT
condition was reinstated, Ashton’s percentage
of compliance to low-p instructions was 100%.
Joey’s initial baseline averaged 5% compliance to the low-p instructions. During the
multielement phase, the baseline condition
averaged 15% compliance, the high-p condition
averaged 40% compliance, and the FT condiCOMPLIANCE IN CHILDREN 497
tion averaged 53% compliance. When the FT
condition was implemented alone, compliance
averaged 84%. During extinction, Joey’s overall
compliance was 17%. After extinction, the FT
condition was reintroduced, and compliance
increased to 96%. Overall, the results suggest
that the antecedent manipulations increased
compliance to low-p instructions relative to
initial baseline levels, although the FT condition produced the greatest increase, and this
increase persisted when the FT condition was
implemented alone. Two potential explanations
are suggested for this finding.
First, in both the high-p instruction sequence
and the FT schedule, several potential reinforcers are introduced immediately prior to
the issuance of a low-p instruction. The
increased presence of preferred items might
act as an abolishing operation whereby the
effectiveness of escape as a reinforcer is lessened
and all behavior that has produced such escape
in the past is abated (e.g., Lalli et al., 1999).
Second, the frequent delivery of reinforcers by
the experimenter in a common setting across all
conditions could have increased the persistence
of compliance in the presence of the experimenter (e.g., Nevin, 1996).
Although it appears that compliance can be
increased without the response requirement of
the high-p instruction sequence, a definitive
conclusion cannot be drawn for two reasons.
First, the multielement arrangement failed to
yield clear discriminations among the experimental conditions. Second, increasing reinforcement in the presence of a given stimulus
should increase the resistance to change of any
behavior that has been reinforced in the
presence of that stimulus, even if reinforcement
is independent of the behavior (Nevin, Tota,
Torquato, & Shull, 1990). In the present study,
all three reinforcement conditions occurred in
the same context; this could have strengthened
compliance in all three conditions, thereby
producing the pattern of behavior obtained in
the multielement phase.
Several other limitations of the current study
should be noted. First, the preferred edible
items and praise were delivered following all
instances of compliance in all conditions. As
such, repeated contact with these potential
Figure 1. Percentage of compliance with low-p instructions for Joey and Ashton during baseline, multielement, FT,
extinction, and FT conditions.
498 CHRYSTIN BULLOCK and MATTHEW P. NORMAND
reinforcers could have produced the increase in
compliance independent of the antecedent
manipulations. However, because compliance
failed to improve during the initial baseline
conditions and did improve following the
introduction of the antecedent manipulation
conditions (including the FT condition following the extinction phase), it is likely that the
antecedent manipulations were causally related
to compliance.
Second, the low-p instructions involved
simple and fairly discrete responses. It is
possible that a procedure involving an FT
schedule of reinforcement prior to the issuance
of a low-p instruction would be ineffective for
behaviors with a higher response requirement.
For example, complying with the instruction
‘‘make your bed’’ involves the completion of
multiple steps in a behavior chain and involves
some amount of physical effort, whereas ‘‘tell
me your name’’ requires a response involving
fewer steps and little physical effort. Finally, in
the extinction component the antecedent delivery of preferred edible items and programmed reinforcement for compliance were
discontinued simultaneously, thereby weakening experimental control.
Future research could address these limitations in several ways. The effects of the FT
schedule could be evaluated in isolation so as to
account for possible carryover effects among
conditions arranged in a multielement format.
Also, different physical settings could be used
for the various experimental conditions to
control for the increased rate of reinforcement
in similar settings across experimental conditions. Further analysis of the effects of antecedent manipulations (e.g., the high-p sequence
and FT schedules) on more complex responses
also is warranted.
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.
Carr, J. E., Nicolson, A. C., & Higbee, T. S. (2000).
Evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus preference
assessment in a naturalistic context. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 33, 353–357.
Kennedy, C. H., Itkonen, T., & Lindquist, K. (1995).
Comparing interspersed requests and social comments
as antecedents for increasing student compliance.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 97–98.
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). Behavioral 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.
Received August 23, 2005
Final acceptance March 31, 2006
Action Editor, F. Charles Mace
COMPLIANCE IN CHILDREN 499
