Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T13:09:55.657Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reinforcement Delay and Across-Setting Generalization in an Intermediate School Special Class

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2014

Robyn S. Dixon ,
Anne Fitzharris  and
Dennis W. Moore
Robyn S. Dixon
Affiliation:
University of Auckland
Anne Fitzharris
Affiliation:
University of Auckland
Dennis W. Moore*
Affiliation:
University of Auckland
*
Department of Education, University of Auckland, Private Bag, Auckland, New Zealand
Get access

Abstract

This study investigated the effect of delayed reinforcement on the across-setting generalization of behaviour change. Eight children aged between 11 and 13, members of a special class at an intermediate school, served as subjects. Off-task behaviour was monitored during two classroom lessons: the contingent lesson, performance in which determined subsequent reinforcement, and the generalization lesson, in which no reinforcement contingencies were provided. Two forms of delayed reinforcement: early — delivered immediately following the setting in which the critical behaviour occurred — and late — delivered only after several other settings had been encountered — were sequentially presented in an ABCB design. Off-task behaviour decreased under both reinforcement conditions. However generalization was only evident when the late delayed reinforcement was operating. Results suggest that a temporal delay in the delivery of reinforcement is more likely to lead to generalization of behaviour change than is the delivery of reinforcement immediately following the contingent lesson.

Type
Research Article
Information
Behaviour Change , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 1989 , pp. 29 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Fantuzzo, J.W. & Clement, P.W. (1981). Generalization of the effects of teacher- and self-administered token reinforcers to nontreated students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 435–447.Google Scholar
Fowler, S.A. & Baer, D.M. (1981). ‘Do I have to be good all day?’ The timing of delayed reinforcement as a factor in generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 13–24.Google Scholar
Pigott, H.E., Fantuzzo, J.W. & Gorsuch, R.L. (1987). Further generalization technology: Accounting for natural covariation in generalization assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 273–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwarz, M.L. & Hawkins, R.P. (1970). Application of delayed reinforcement procedures to the behaviour of an elementary school child. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 3, 85–96.Google Scholar
Stevenson, H.C. & Fantuzzo, J.W. (1984). Application of the ‘generalization map’ to a self-control intervention with school-aged children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 203–212.Google Scholar
Stevenson, H.C. & Fantuzzo, J.W. (1986). The generality and social validity of a competency-based self-control training intervention for underachieving students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19, 269–276.Google Scholar
Stokes, T.F. & Baer, D.M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–367.Google Scholar