PS560 Discussion

Understanding Behavior Reduction Strategies

Think about a past personal experience in which a behavior (either your own or that of someone in your environment) was met with punishment contingencies. First, describe the behavior, explaining whether you think the behavior was a rule-governed or contingency-shaped behavior.

Then, explain how either a positive or negative punishment contingency was used and the resultant effect on the problem behavior.

Finally, review that same experience from a behavior analytic perspective and discuss whether the use of punishment may or may not have been an appropriate strategy to use. Explain how you might modify the prior approach to decrease the problem behavior using positive punishment, negative punishment, or extinction, being sure to identify how motivating operations and the use of reinforcement would play a role in increasing an alternate behavior.

Review two of your classmate’s responses using following ideas as a guide:

Do you agree with the explanation of rule-governed vs. contingency shaped behavior provided? Why or why not?
Provide feedback on the modification of the strategy discussed to decrease the problem behavior, and one suggestion for additional modifications.
Ask at least one thoughtful follow up question. Reply to Kaylah Healy: I would like to discuss a situation which I have personally observed when commuting to work. A bus driver failed to come to a complete stop at a four-way stop sign, resulting in a collision and injury. The driver had previously gone through safe driving training and was fully aware of state traffic laws and transit specific policies requiring a complete stop at all stop signs. Compliance with this expectation would likely have been rule-governed behavior, meaning it was controlled by verbal descriptions of contingencies provided during training (Wulfert, 2013). However, over time, repeated contact with natural contingencies may have changed behavioral control. Lets say that the driver had previously rolled through stop signs without immediate consequences and experienced reinforcement in the form of avoiding complaints due to tardiness, the behavior would then be contingency-shaped. In this case, immediate reinforcement for saving time may have exerted stronger control than delayed disciplinary consequences (Cooper et al., 2020). In this case, the immediate reinforcement for saving time and avoiding complaints would have stronger control than delayed disciplinary consequences. Following the incident, the transit supervisors issued a two-week unpaid suspension (this knowledge was received via communication from the transit company) as it was their first “proven” incident. This shows the use of negative punishment, as a valued stimulus, ability to work and earn money, was removed contingent on the unsafe driving behavior (Cooper et al., 2020). The immediate effect of this contingency would be suppression of rolling stops, due to both financial loss and increase of maintaining the job. In occupations involving public safety, consequences may be ethically justified to protect passengers and other individuals. However, from a behavior analytic view, punishment alone may reduce the likelihood of the behavior happening again but does not teach or increase safe alternative behaviors. Furthermore, it would not directly change the motivating variable that caused the unsafe stopping behavior (Cooper et al., 2020; van Haaren, 2020). A better, function-based approach could improve long-term behavior change. A functional assessment could identify if rolling stops were maintained by escape from passenger complaints, positive reinforcement from staying on time, or a habit formed from past intermittent reinforcement. To modify the behavior, the transit authority could implement differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) by providing recognition or incentives for safe stops and incident-free routes (Cooper et al., 2020). Antecedent modifications, such as adjusting route schedules to reduce time pressure, would decrease the establishing operation for rushing and make safe stopping more likely (Michael, 1993). Behavioral skills training (BST), including instruction, modeling, rehearsal, and feedback, could strengthen the drivers ability to consistently stop safely under realistic route demands. Finally, any inadvertent reinforcement for unsafe efficiency should be placed on extinction to reduce the likelihood that rolling stops are maintained (van Haaren, 2020). Motivating operations play a large role in shaping unsafe and safe behavior. If being behind on schedule functions as an establishing operation, it would temporarily increase the value of saving time and evoke rolling through stop signs (Michael, 1993). By restructuring contingencies to increase reinforcement for safe driving and reducing reinforcement for unsafe driving behaviors, the probability of safe behavior increases while decreasing reliance on punishment as the main behavior management strategy. Overall, the suspension (negative punishment) may have been an effective consequence for immediate consequence due to the severity of the incident, however, lasting behavior change requires reinforcement-based strategies, antecedent changes, and extinction procedures to support socially significant and safe driving behavior.References:Cooper, J., Heron, T., & Heward, W. (2020). Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson.Michael, J. (1993). Establishing operations. The Behavior Analyst, 16, 191206.van Haaren, F. (2020). Extinction revisited: Implications for application. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 20(1), 3642.Wulfert, E. (2013). Rule-governed behavior. Salem Press Encyclopedia of Health. Reply to Natasha Fields: An example of punishment contingencies in my life recently, involved staying up too late texting someone I had just met and getting to know more. I had to wake up early for work, to get my kids ready for school, to school and then myself where I needed to be. The behavior was constantly staying up past midnight on my phone instead of going to sleep at a time that would allow me to get enough sleep and still get up early enough to do all the adulting I needed to do. My behavior was mostly contingency-shaped (Cooper, 2020). I feel it was reinforced by the conversations and attention I received from the person I was getting to know. As a single mom, its hard to make time for yourself, and add in additional life stressors, its almost nonexistent. The immediate reinforcement of good and witty banter and conversation, make it very unlikely that I would stop this even though it meant I would be very tired and even sometimes grumpy in the morning because of it.The punishment contingency would happen the next morning when I of course was extremely tired and overwhelmed with everything needed to get our days going.Feeling exhausted and stressed was as positive punishment, a negative condition was added after the habit and behavior of staying up too late.As a result, I realized that because I was staying up later than reasonable, I was tired, I was grumpy with my kiddos and myself, and it wasnt something that was going to make my day better.From a behavior analytic perspective, punishment did reduce the behavior, but it was not the most effective strategy as a long-term fix or change. The fatigue and stress helped me decrease the behavior, but it didnt give me an alternate option or behavior. A better strategy could involve adjusting the time we spoke and reinforcing a more sustainable routine.For example, I could set a timer and only allow myself to talk or communicate during those timeframes, and ultimately have the behavior reach extinction. Ultimately, once being able to determine if getting to know this person could lead to a more consistent routine in communication or getting to know each other assisted in being able to eliminate that behavior altogether. Cooper, J., Heron, T., & Heward, W. (2022). Applied Behavior Analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson.

WRITE MY PAPER

Understanding Behavior Reduction Strategies

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply