A laboratory comparison of two variations of differential‐reinforcement‐of‐low‐rate procedures. Issue 2 (17th April 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jessel, Joshua; Borrero, John C.
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied behavior analysis. Volume 47:Issue 2(2014:Summer)
• Page Start: 314
• Page End: 324
• Publication Date: 2014-04-17
• Subjects: Psychology, Applied -- Periodicals; Social Behavior -- Periodicals; 150
• DOI: 10.1002/jaba.114
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0021-8855

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <sec id="jaba114-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <p>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.</p> </sec> </abstract>