Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

An important goal of reinforcement models and procedures is to predict the direction and magnitude of reinforcement effects. Although traditional models of reinforcement have been unable to adequately predict effects, Timberlake and Farmer-Dougan (1991) have suggested that the disequilibrium model provides such a framework for specifying reinforcers ahead of time. Further, they suggest that incidental teaching may be one procedure in which such predictions may be made. The present experiment investigated the reinforcement effects produced by changes in the probability of disruption of an initiation to a toy item. Four preschoolers served as the participants in the experiment. Results indicated that there appeared to be an optimal level for disrupting ongoing behavior, above or below which reinforcement effects greatly suffered. These findings, although not a direct test of the disequilibrium model ol reinforcement, are consistent with and predicted by the model.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allison, J. (1983). Behavioral economics. New York: Praeger.

Bakeman, R. , & Gottman, J. M. (1989). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Farmer-Dougan, V. A. (1994). Increasing requests by adults with developmental disabilities using incidental teaching by peers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 553-544.

Hanson, S. J. , & Timberlake, W. (1983). Regulation during challenge: Ageneral model of learned performance under schedule constraint. Psychological Review, 90, 261-282.

Haring, T. G. , Neetz, J. A. , Lovinger, L. , Peck, C. , & Semmel, M. I. (1987). Effects of four modified incidental teaching procedures to create opportunities for communication. Journal of the Association for Severe Handicaps, 12, 218-226.

Hart, B. , & Risley, T. R. (1968). Establishing use of descriptive adjectives in the spontaneous speech of disadvantaged preschool children. Joumal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 109-120.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1974). Using preschool materials to modify the language of disadvantaged children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 243-256.

Hart, B. , & Risley, T. R. (1975). Incidental teaching of language in the preschool. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 411-420.

Hart, B. , & Risley, T. R. (1980). In vivo language: Unanticipated general effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 407-432.

10.

McGee, G. G. , Almeida, C. , Sulzer-Azaroff, B. , & Feldman, R. S. (1992). Promoting reciprocal interactions via peer incidental teaching. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 117-126.

11.

McGee, G. G. , Krantz, P. J. , Mason, D. , & McClannahan, L. E. (1983). A modified incidental-teaching procedure for autistic youth: Acquisition and generalization of receptive object labels. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16, 329-338.

12.

McGee, G. G. , Krantz, P. J. , & McClannahan, L. E. (1985). The facilitative effects of incidental teaching on preposition use by autistic children. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 18, 17-32.

13.

Meehl, P. E. (1950). On the circularity of the law of effect. Psychological Bulletin, 45, 52-75.

14.

Premack, D. (1971). Catching up with common sense or two sides of a generalization: Reinforcement and punishment. In R. Glaser (Ed.), The nature oJ reinforcement (pp. 121-150). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

15.

Skinner, B. F. (1938). Behavior of organisms. Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

16.

Staddon, J.E.R. (1979). Operant behavior as adaptation to constrain. JoiArnal of Experimental Psychology, 108, 48-67.

17.

Stowitschek, J. , McConbaughy, C. , Peatross, D. , Salzberg, C. , & Lignugaris-Kraft, B. (1988). Effects of group incidental training on mentally retarded adults' use of social amenities in a work setting. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 23, 202-231.

18.

Timberlake, W. , & Allison, J. (1974). Response deprivation: An empirical approach to instrumental performance. Psychological Review, 81, 146-164.

19.

Timberlake, W. , & Farmer-Dougan, V. A. (1991). Reinforcement in applied settings: Figuring out ahead of time what will work. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 379-391.

20.

Warren, S. F. , & Kaiser, A. P. (1986). Incidental language teaching: A critical review. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 51, 291-299.

A Disequilibrium Analysis of Incidental Teaching

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References