The effects of schedules of reinforcement on instruction-following in human subjects with verbal and nonverbal stimuli

Analyses of relational coherence and rule following: Consistent liars are preferred over occasional truth tellers

The current study explored the influence of different levels of speaker coherence on rule following and speaker preference. In Experiment 1, rules provided by three different speakers were either 100% accurate, 0% accurate, or 50% accurate/inaccurate. Experiment 2 was similar to Experiment 1 except that the speaker's coherence was adjusted to 80% accurate, 20% accurate, and 50% accurate/inaccurate, respectively. Overall, participants tended to follow coherent speaker rules and avoid following incoherent speaker rules during training and testing phases. The results also indicated that following and not following rules provided by speakers may be generalizable to novel stimuli and maintained in the absence of differential reinforcement (i.e., in experimental test phases). Additionally, in a preference test, participants tended to prefer coherent over incoherent and partially coherent speakers. Furthermore, participants tended to prefer the relatively more incoherent speaker (i.e., 0% or 20% accurate) over the 50% accurate coherent speaker in both experiments. Finally, a comparison of the results of both experiments indicated that different levels of relational coherence affected the variability of rule-following and speaker preference behaviors. These findings are discussed in the context of the complexities that appear to be involved in rule-following behaviors and speaker preference.

Effects of reinforcement and response-cost history on instructional control

The present study compared the effects of reinforcement or punishment versus no additional consequences for instruction following on instructional control and subsequent rule-governed insensitivity. In two experiments, adult participants were presented with repeated choices between a short progressive-time schedule and either a fixed time-schedule or a longer progressive-time schedule. In Experiment 1, three groups were given an initially accurate instruction relative to the direct contingency. A control group experienced no additional consequences for compliance with instructions, whereas compliance resulted in additional points for a second group, and noncompliance led to the subtraction of points for a third group. In a subsequent phase, instructions became inaccurate and there were no additional consequences for compliance or noncompliance for any group. Consistent with previous results, rule-governed insensitivity was observed in all participants. Experiment 2 employed the same procedure, except instructions were inaccurate throughout all sessions, and compliance in the subsequent phase resulted in diminishing points per session. Reinforcement for following instructions increased instructional control and subsequent rule-governed insensitivity. This increase was maintained even after the termination of additional consequences, a result that supports theoretical suggestions that a history of reinforcement for complying with instructions and rules is an important factor in rule-governed insensitivity.

Reopening the Doors to Center-Based ABA Services: Clinical and Safety Protocols During COVID-19

In the wake of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, U.S. organizations that provide applied behavior analysis (ABA) programs to individuals with autism spectrum disorder have implemented a variety of safety precautions to minimize the spread of the virus, often shifting center-based services to the home or telehealth. Considered essential workers, ABA providers are exempt from government directives to close, so they have both the freedom and the great responsibility to make their own decisions about how best to keep their clients safe while continuing to provide medically necessary services. In the coming weeks and months, ABA providers will be faced with the decision about whether to reopen centers. This article does not address that decision, except to acknowledge the urgency to reopen, both to help clients and to remain solvent. Political rhetoric and contradictory public information further complicate this daunting decision. Because ABA providers do not have legal guidance to shift the burden of such decisions to local and state regulators, the burden is theirs alone. The unprecedented nature of the COVID-19 pandemic means that no decision is clearly wrong or right, and every decision has consequences. Although ABA providers do not have their own state guidance, many states have issued guidelines for childcare providers whose operations have continued throughout the pandemic. This article analyzes that guidance, identifies common variables potentially relevant to ABA organizations, highlights clinical considerations and procedural compliance, and provides ABA organizations with the tools to make the best decision for their clients, in their community, and on their timeline.

Acceptance in behavior therapy: Understanding the process of change

Acceptance is integral to several cutting-edge behavior therapies. However, several questions about acceptance remain to be clearly answered. First, what does acceptance look like, and can it be observed and measured? Second, what are the behavioral principles involved in the promotion of acceptance? Third, when is acceptance indicated or contraindicated as a therapeutic goal? The current paper attempts to clarify answers to these questions. The goal is to provide a conceptualization of the what, how, and when of acceptance that is accessible to behavior analysts, both to promote our understanding of acceptance as a behavioral phenomenon and to facilitate its empirical study and therapeutic utility.