Jump to content

User:Josh.Pritchard.DBA/ABA sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Behavior analysis

[edit]

Contingencies, uncertainity, and attachment

The behavioral model of attachment recognizes the role of uncertainity and uncertainity reduction. An infant is helpless and born into an uncertain world. From its earliest moments, the infant relies on the parent for many types of reinforcers such as heat (human infants do not thermoregulate well), food, water and protection. In addition, infants have a very limited repertiore for communicating such needs. Actions that produce contingent responding on the parents part are highly valued.[1] Thus at the heart of behavior analytic theories is the importance of contingent relationships.[2][3][4] The importance of contingency appears to be highlighted in other developmental theories;[5] however, many traditional developmental psychologists fail to recognize that contingency needs to be determined by two conditional probabilities.[6] In short, it is not just the efficiency of the action but the efficiency of the act compared to all other acts that the infant may perform at that point.

It is through the learning of contingent relationships that infants and adults are able to function within their environment. Research has shown that contingent relationships lead to more emotionally satisfying relationships.[7]

As early as the 1960s, behavioral research showed that parental responsiveness toward the infant on separation predicted identified outcomes in the "stranger situation" and modified versions of this preparation.[8] In one study six, 8 to 10 month old infants were run through four test conditions. The study was a classic reversal design (see single-subject research). The study assessed infant approach rate to the stranger. If attention was based on stranger avoidence the infant avoided the stranger. If attention was placed on infant approach, the infant approached the stranger.[9]

Recent meta-ananlytic studies of the behavioral development model of attachment based on contingency find that it has a moderate effect size, which increases to a large effect size when the quality of reinforcement is considered.[10] Recent research on the study of contingency highlights the matching quality[11] and places it in the diadic context[12][13] In addition, such studies have shown that contingencies can affect the development of both prosocial and antisocial behavior.[14][15][16][17] Indeed, training parents to become sensitive to the function of children's behavior and to respond behaviorally has a very large effect size[18]

The infants sensativity to contingency can be effected by biological factors (philogentic),[19] as well as being placed in irratic environments which contain few contingencies.[20] Less sensativity to contingencies can set the child up to have conduct problems[21] Loss of contingency could lead to depression (see Behavioral Development and Depression below).

Research and theory continue to look at the effects of learning based attachment on moral development.[22] Erratic use of contingencies early in life can produce devastating effects later[23]

Behavior analysis of socialization

Studies in behavior analysis of development observed the extended pattern of using rewards on behavior over time. The model focuses on two levels a micro and macro-analysis. The micro-analysis studies the moment to moment interactions while a macro-analysis focuses on parenting variables. Over the last few decades, longitudinal studies have lent credence to the idea that the use of reinforcement and punishment over extended periods of time lead to the development of prosocial,[24] antisocial,[25][26]and sick behavior.[27] Midlarsky and colleagues (1973) used a combination of modeling and reinforcement to build altruistic behavior.[28] At least two studies exist in which modeling by itself did not increase prosocial behavior;[29][30] however, modeling is much more effective then instruction giving such as "preaching"[31][32]The role of rewards has been implicated in the building of self-control[33] and empathy.[34][35][36] Cooperation seems particularly susceptible to rewards.[37][38][39][40] Sharing is another prosocial behavior influenced by reinforcement.[41][42] Reinforcement is particularly effective at least early in the learning series if context conditions are similar.[43] Evidence exists to show some generalization.[44] While reinforcement is generally accepted, the role of punishment has been more controversial.

Studying the role of punishment an interesting batch of studies exist. One study found that donation rates of children could be increased by punishing episodes of failure to donate[45]

The socialization process continues by teachers and by peers with reinforcement and punishment playing major roles. Peers are more likely to punish cross gender play and reinforce play specific to gender.[46][47][48] In the school older studies found that teachers were more likely to reinforce dependent behavior in females.[49] Such patterns have been found to contribute to gender differences at least in the short run[50]

Behavioral principles have also been researched in emerging peer groups with focus on status.[51] Such research as found that neglected boys are the least interactive and aversive, yet remain relatively unknown in groups. This research also suggests that it takes different social skills to enter groups then to maintain or build status in groups. Other research has found that withdrawn behavior can be decreased with a corresponding increase in social interactions for children[52]

The tradition continues to grow with its focus on moral and prosocial behavior. Recent efforts by Pelaez-Nogueras & Gewirtz (1995)[53] are of interest. They presented a comprehensive conceptual behavior-analytical approach to the basic behavioral processes that are thought to be involved in the acquisition and maintenance of early moral behavior patterns. Their analysis emphasizes that what has been termed “moral” behavior of an individual is ultimately the result of a history of socio-environmental contingencies affected by the consequences of that individual’s behavior. They illustrated how the operant-learning paradigm, with its emphasis on action and extrinsic stimuli, can account for much moral behavior as an outcome of conditioning processes. In this analysis, various processes are proposed for pre- and post-language acquisition individuals, taking into account behaviors that are public or private, non-verbal or verbal, and that may denote altruism, empathy, self-sacrifice, sharing, caring, conscience, justice, loyalty, or virtue. In this conceptual work, they noted the distinction between direct contingency-shaped behavior and rule-governed behavior in which moral behavior is seen initially as under the control of nonverbalizable direct contingencies in prelinguistic children. Later, with advances in the child’s language skills, much of that behavior is seen as coming under the control of verbalizable explicit rules (including both those that are self-formulated and those provided by others). This behavior analytic approach details the features of the operant-learning paradigm efficiently to explain the very same phenomena in the moral realm that nonbehavioral cognitive and mentalistic theories have targeted, at the same time that it attempts to fill in details that cognitive-developmental postulates seem to require. Moreover, this work offered a basic behavior analytic explanations of moral phenomena not previously analyzed. They emphasized behavioral outcomes as well as on antecedent and concurrent verbalizations of those behaviors (including verbal reasoning and moral judgment that have been the study matter of cognitive-developmental theories), the model may provide some leads on how to deal with overt actions in the moral realm.

Behavior analysis and antisocial behavior

In the development of antisocial behavior, etiological models for antisocial behavior show considerable correlation with negative reinforcement and response matching (see matching law).[54][55][56] Such models have consistently found a role for escape conditioning through the use of coercive behavior as having a powerful effect on the development and use of future antisocial tactics. From this view, antisocial behavior can be seen as functional for the child in moment to moment interactions. The rate of pro-social tactics used to antisocial tactics used during conflicts is directly proportional to the payoff.[57] This model explains 76% of the variance in child's chosen tactics and over 56% of the variance in the parents chosen tactics. Finally, the tactic payoff model predicted arrest rates two years later.[58] Interventions based on this model are developing as enhancements to the typical behavioral parent training model[59]

The role of stimulus control has also been extensively explored in the development of antisocial behavior[60] Using lag sequential analysis, researchers have been able to describe the immediate impact of one person's behavior on another in the family. Such patterns showed that overlearning was so rampant that the behavior was automatic and cognitive awareness was neither necessary nor sufficient to explain the interactions[61][62]

Recent behavioral focus in the study of antisocial behavior has been a focus on rule governed behavior. While correspondence for saying and doing has long been an interest for behavior analysts in normal development and typical socialization,[63][64][65] recent conceptualizations have been built around families that actively train children in antisocial rules[66] as well as children who fail to develop rule control[67]

Behavior analysis of cognitive behavior

As children get older, direct control of contingencies is modified by the presence of rule governed behavior[68]While the size of the effects on intellectual development are less clear, it appears that stimulation does have a facilitative effect on intellectual ability.[69] However, it is important to be sure not to confuse the enhancing effect with the initial causal effect.[70] Some data exists to show that children with developmental delays take more learning trials to acquire in material[71]

Behavior analysis of cognitive development

Following the fall of the soviet backed government in Romania in 1989, international adoption became a legal practice again. In 1991, a study was started that followed the development of orphans from the Romania orphanage to their new homes four years later. In total seventy Canadian children were divided into three different groups. These groups related the orphanage against a normal childhood upbringing. The researchers interviewed the subjects and paired each of them with a similar subject in an opposing group, matching exact age and gender. The groups were Romanian Orphans, Canadian Born, and Early Adoption.

There were twenty-four Romanian orphans were followed after adoption. These children stayed in the orphanage for at least eight months of the first year of their life. Also children in this group where monitored to see if they were favored by the workers at the orphanage, to see if they received special care or attention. The twenty-four Canadian Born children were set up as a control group. These children were born in traditional, nuclear families. These were not Romanian children; the only thing they had in common with their counterpart was exact age and gender. The third group was a smaller variable group where the researchers looked at eleven children that had been adopted from the orphanage less than four months from birth. These children were picked to determine if the amount of time in the orphanage had any effect on development at all.

When the children were on average, two researchers would interview the parents and the child separately. The parents were interviewed to determine the type of environment the child had lived in. The child was given a Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale IQ test. The preconception was that the Romanian group would score lower than both the Canadian group and the early adopted. The results show that the Romanian children have what is considered healthy brain activity, but show a deficiency in higher power motor skills and cognitive processes. This supports the researchers claims that early childhood institutionalization directly affects the cognitive development of a child.

The early adoption group proved little results against either group. All eleven children in the group scored in between the Romanian and the Canadian groups in the IQ tests, yet there were not enough subjects in the group to give it credibility. But, one can take from this data that adoption before four months does increase the child’s chances of cognitive growth.[72]

Opportunity to respond, learned units, and developmental retardation

Behavior analysts have spent considerable time measuring learning in the classroom and in the home. Recent work has been on a model of "developmental retardation".[73] Often research in this area looks at cumulative environmental effects and how they create developmental delays. The opportunity to respond is defined as an instructional antecedent and its success in getting the appropriate response, sometimes fluency is used to measure this.[74] The learned unit is defined as the opportunity to respond plus reinforcement[75]

In one study using this model, students time of instruction was compared in affluent schools to poorer schools. Actual amount of instruction received revealed that poorer school lost on average about 15 minutes/day in instruction due to issues of classroom management This compiled to 2 years worth of lost instructional time by the 10th grade[76]

Behavior analysis and class formation

The formation of class-like behavior has been of considerable interest to behavior analysts studying development. Extensive research has been done in this area.[77] From this research, behavior analysts have offered multiple paths to the development and formation of class-like behavior. These paths include primary stimulus generalization,[78][79] an analysis of abstraction[80],[81][82][83][84][85] relational frames theory[86][87][88][89] stimulus class analysis (sometimes referred to as recombinative generalization),[90][91] stimulus equivalence,[92] and response class analysis[93].[94][95][96][97][98] Of particular interest is the analysis of the response class. Multiple process's for class like formation provide behavior analysts with relatively pragmatic explanations for common issues of novelty and generalization.

Responses organize in a form assembled by the particular form need to fit the environmental challenge at hand. Thus, the forms of the responses organize by responses functional consequences. Such large response classes can merge as in the case of contingency adduction.[99] Much more research needs to be done on the issue of contingency adduction, especially with a focus on how large classes of concepts shift. For example, as Piaget pointed out have a tendency at the pre-operational stage to have limits to their ability to conserver (Piaget & Szeminska, 1952). While training children to develop conservation skills has been generally successful[100][101] it is by no means easy.[102] Behavior analysts argue that this is largely due to the number of tool skills that need to be developed and integrated. Adduction offers a process by which such skills can be synthesized and hence warrants further attention, particularly by early interventionists. Even with this said, children who learn to conserve early do not appear to have any other life benefit from the learning process.[103] This last brings up questions of the relevance of Piaget's model to development.

Behavior analysis of child development's role in education

In the field of education, in 1968, Siegfried Englemann used operant conditioning techniques, a task analysis of curriculum, and combined them with rule learning to produce the Direct Instruction curriculum.[104]In addition, Fred Keller used similar techniques to develop programmed instruction. Skinner developed a programmed instruction curriculum for teaching hand writing. One of Skinner's students, Ogden Lindsley, developed a standardized semilogrithmic chart, the "Standard Behavior Chart" now "Standard Celeration Chart" for recording frequencies of behavior,and to allow direct visual comparisons of such frequencies and changes in those frequencies, termed "celeration". Use of this charting tool for analysis of instructional effect or other environmental variable by direct measurement of learner performance has become known as precision teaching.[105]

In education, there are many different kinds of learning that are required for later interaction in the world. Such aspects of learning include social, and language[106]These different areas of development are crucial for a growing child. And as technology continues to increase, its power has been spread to all areas. Technology can be used for good but too much of a good thing can have negative effects on a child or person. According to the NWREL (Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory), too much technology will hinder a child’s social interactions with others. There is always a fear that later in life, this early computer interaction will become an addiction and lead to antisocial behavior.[107]Not only is education and technology a big factor in child development, language always plays a big role. Language development doesn’t seem to have the same need for technology as social development does but studies show that some technology helps motor skills develop more efficiently. It is said that by the age of 18 months, a child will start to learn and know about 5 -20 different words[108]It is then understood that once the child knows these words, they go explore in the world and get a better understanding of this world.

Behavior analysis of motor development

Behavior analysts have held since the days of Watson that motor development represents a conditioning process. The argument is that crawling, climbing, and even the walking displayed by all typical infants represents conditioning of biologically pre-programmed reflexes. In this view, the nature end is represented by the innate respondent behavior (stepping) and these reflexes are environmentally conditioned through experience and practice. This position was critiqued by maturation theorists. On criticism was that the stepping reflex for infants appeared to disappear and thus was not "continuous." While working from a slightly different theoretical model but using operant conditioning and opportunity to respond techniques, Esther Thelen was able to show that children's stepping reflex disappears as a function of increased physical weight but if infants are placed in water, it returns.[109] This offered a plausible model for the continuity of the stepping reflex and thus the progressive stimulation model of the behavior analysts.

Indeed, infants deprived of physical stimulation or the opportunity to respond were found to have delayed motor development.[110][111] Under conditions of extra stimulation the motor behavior of these children rapidly improved.[112] One area of research has shown that treadmilling can be beneficial to children with motor delays including Down syndrome and cerebral palsy[113] Research on opportunity to respond and the building of motor development continues today[114][115][116]

Behavior analysis of developmental depression with origins in childhood

Behavioral theory of depression was outlined by Charles Ferster.[117] A later revision was provided by Peter Lewisohn and Hyman Hops. Hops continued the work on the role of negative reinforcement in maintaining depression with Anthony Bigland.[118][119][120][121] Additional factors such as the role of loss of contingent relations through extinction and punishment were taken from early work of Martin Seligman. The most recent summary and conceptual revisons of the behavioral model was provided by Johnathan Kanter.[122] The standard model is that depression has multiple paths to develop. It can be generated by five basic processes, including: lack or loss of positive reinforcement,[123] direct positive or negative reinforcement for depressive behavior, lack of rule-governed behavior or to much rule governed behavior, and/or to much environmental punishment. For children, some of these variables could set the pattern for life long problems. For example, a child who's depressive behavior functions for negative reinforcement by stopping fighting between parents could develop a life long pattern of depressive behavior in the case of conflicts. Two paths that are particularly important are (1) lack or loss of reinforcement because of missing necessary skills at a developmental cusp point or (2) the failure to develop adequate rule governed behavior. For the latter, the child could develop a pattern of always choosing the short term small immediate reward (i.e., escaping studying for a test) at the expense of the long term larger reward (failing courses in middle school).

Critiques of behavioral approach and new developments

Some have questioned if a behavioral approach to development is enough or do more traditional developmental variables play a causal role.[124] Particularly in areas of attachment.[125] While some questions remain, it is clear that in general, response contingent learning opportunities produce strong emotional benefits and enhance emotional development.[126] Behavior analytic theories have been criticized for focusing on explaining the acquisition of relatively simple behavior (the behavior of nonhuman species, of infants, and of individuals who are mentally retarded or autistic) rather than complex behavior (see Commons & Miller).[127] Commons continued behavior analysis's rejecting of mentalism and substituted task analyses. This approach shows that more complex behaviors combine and sequence less complex behaviors. This fact of hierarchical organization may be used to define the nature of stage and stage transition. In his new model, he has created a behavior analytic model of more complex behavior in line with more contemporary quantitative behavior analytic models. He calls this the model of hierarchical complexity. Commons (Commons, Trudeau, et. al 1998[128]) constructed the model of hierarchical complexity of tasks and their corresponding stages of performance using basically just three main axioms (see Model of Hierarchical Complexity).[129]

In the study of development, recent work has been generated around combining behavior analytic views with dynamical systems theory[130] The added benefit of this approach is that it shows how small patterns of changes in behavior in terms of principles and mechanisms over time can produce substantial changes in development.[131]

Current research in behavior analysis attempts to extend the patterns learned in childhood and to determine their impact on adult development

Professional support of behavior analytic model

  • Journals
In response to the growing body of research in child development, the creation of two online journal devoted to behavior analysis and child development are the Behavioral Development Bulletin and an international journal online devoted to developmental pathology and its intervention- Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention'
  • Professional Organizations
The Association for Behavior Analysis International contains a special interest group on behavior analysis of child development. This group continues the research tradition outlined above. In addition, this group offers a Sidney Bijou award and scholarship for those studying child development from a behavioral perspective.
  1. ^ Indeed operant behavior is defined as operant behavior because it operates on the world around us
  2. ^ Cavell, T. A., & Strand, P. S. (2002). Parent-Based interventions for aggressive, antisocial children:Adapting to a bilateral lens. In L. Kuczynski (Ed.), Handbook of dynamics in parent-child relations (pp. 395-419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  3. ^ Gewirtz, J. L., & Peláez-Nogueras, M. (1991). The attachment metaphor and the conditioning of infant separation protests. In J. L. Gewirtz & W. M. Kurtines (Eds.), Intersections with attachment (pp. 123-144). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
  4. ^ Patterson, G.R. (2002). The early development of coercive family processes. In J.B. Reid, G.R. Patterson, & J. Snyder, J.J. (Eds.). Antisocial behavior in children and adolecents: A Developmental analysis and model for intervention. APA Press
  5. ^ Watson, J. S. (1979). Perception of contingency as a determinant of social responsiveness. In E. B. Thoman (Ed.), Origins of the infant’s social responsiveness. In E.B. Thoman (Ed.), Origins of the infant's social responsiveness (pp. 33-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
  6. ^ Gerwitz, J.L. & Boyd, E.F.(1977). Experiments on mother-infant interaction underlying mutual attachment acquisition: The infant conditions the mother. In T. Alloway, P. Plinger, & L. Krames (Eds.). Attachment behavior (pp. 109-143). New York: Plenum Press
  7. ^ Dunst, C.J., Raab, M., Trivette, C.M., Parkey, C., Gatens, M., Wilson, L.L. French, J., Hamby, D.W.(2007). Child and Adult Social-Emotional Benefits of Response-Contingent Child Learning Opportunities. JEIBI, 4(2), 379-391.
  8. ^ Gewirtz, J. L. (1961). A learning analysis of the effects of normal stimulation, privation, and deprivation on the acquisition of social motivation and attachment. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of infant behaviour(pp. 213-229). New York: Wiley.
  9. ^ Gewirtz, J., & Pelaez-Nogueras, M.(2000).Infant emotions under the positive-reinforcer control of caregiver attention and touch. In J.C. Leslie & D. Blackman (Eds.), Issues in Experimental and Applied Analysis of Human Behavior (pp. 271-291). Reno, NV: Context Press
  10. ^ Kassow, D.Z., & Dunst, C.J. (2004) Relationship between parental contingent-responsiveness and attachment outcomes. Bridges, Volume 2, Number 4, 1-17. [1]
  11. ^ Herrnstein, R.J.(1961). Relative and absolute strength of responses as a function of frequency or reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 267-272
  12. ^ Patterson, G.R.(1979). A performance model for coercive family interactions. In R.B. Cairns (Ed.), Social interaction: Methods, analysis, and illustrations (pp. 119-162). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  13. ^ Patterson, G.R.(1984). Microsocial processes: A view from the boundary. In J. Masters (Ed.), Boundary areas in social and developmental psychology (pp. 43-66). New York: Academic Press.
  14. ^ Cavell, T. A., & Strand, P. S. (2002). Parent-Based interventions for aggressive, antisocial children:Adapting to a bilateral lens. In L. Kuczynski (Ed.), Handbook of dynamics in parent-child relations (pp. 395-419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  15. ^ Wahler, R. G., Herring, M., & Edwards, M. (2001). Co-regulation of balance between children's prosocial approaches and acts of compliance: A pathway to mother-child cooperation? Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 473-478.
  16. ^ Wahler, R. G., & Bellamy, A. (1997). Generating reciprocity with conduct problem children and their mothers: The effectiveness of compliance teaching and responsive parenting. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships (Special issue: Reciprocity and Bidirectionality), 14(4), 549-564.
  17. ^ Wahler, R. G., & Smith, G. G. (1999). Effective parenting as the integration of lessons and dialogue.Journal of Child and Family Studies, 8, 135-149.
  18. ^ Dunst,C.J., & Kassow, D.Z.(2004).Characteristics of interventions promoting parental sensitivity to child behavior. Bridges 2, 1-17
  19. ^ Quay, H.C(1987). Patterns f delinquent behavior. In H.C. Quay (Ed.). Handbook of Juvenile Delinquency (pp. 118-138). New York: Wiley
  20. ^ Cairns, R.B.(1979). The analysis of social interaction: Methods, issues, and illustrations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Earlbaum
  21. ^ see patterson (2002).
  22. ^ Commons, M.L. (1991). A comparison and synthesis of Kohlberg's cognitive developmental theories and Gerwitz's learning-developmental attachment theories. In J.L. Gewirtz & W.M. Kurtines (Eds.), Intersections with attachment. hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
  23. ^ Commons, M.L & Miller, P.M. (2007).How Early Negative Caregiving:Experiences Relate to Stage of Attachment. Behavioral Development Bulletin, 13, 14-17.BAO
  24. ^ Eisenberg N, Wolchik SA, Goldberg L, Engel I (1992). "Parental values, reinforcement, and young children's prosocial behavior: a longitudinal study". J Genet Psychol. 153 (1): 19–36. PMID 1645156.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  25. ^ Snyder JJ, Patterson GR (1995). "Individual differences in social aggression: a test of a reinforcement model of socialization in the natural environment". Behav Ther. 26 (2): 371–91. doi:10.1016/S0005-7894(05)80111-X.
  26. ^ Patterson GR (2002). "Etiology and treatment of child and adolescent antisocial behavior" (PDF). Behav Analyst Today. 3 (2): 133–45.
  27. ^ Whitehead WE, Crowell MD, Heller BR, Robinson JC, Schuster MM, Horn S (1994). "Modeling and reinforcement of the sick role during childhood predicts adult illness behavior". Psychosom Med. 56 (6): 541–50. PMID 7871110.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  28. ^ Midlarsky, E., Bryan, J.H., & Brickman, P.(1973). Aversive approval: Interactive effects of modeling and reinforcement on altruistic behavior. Child Development, 44, 321-328
  29. ^ Harris, M.B.(1970). Reciprocity and generosity: Some determinants of sharing in children. Child Development, 41, 313-328.
  30. ^ Elliot, R., & Vasta, R.(1970). Effects associated with vicarious reinforcement, symbolization, age, and generalization. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 10, 8-15
  31. ^ Bryan, J.H. & Walbek, N.H.(1970). Impact of words and deeds concerning altruism upon children. Child Development, 41, 747-759
  32. ^ Bryan, J.H. & Walbek, N.(1970). Preaching and practicing generosity: Children's action and reaction. Child Development, 41, 329-353.
  33. ^ Barry, L.M. & Haraway, D.L. (2005). Self-Management and ADHD: A Literature Review. The Behavior Analyst Today, 6.(1), 48-64BAO
  34. ^ Maccoby, E.M(1968). The development of moral values and behavior in childhood. In J.A. Clausen's (Ed). Socialization and Society. Little Brown Books: Boston
  35. ^ Aronfreed, J.(1968). Conduct and conscience: The socializing of internalized control of overt behavior. New York: Academic Press
  36. ^ Aronfreed, J. (1970). The socialization of altruistic and sympathetic behavior: Some theoretical and experimental analysis. In J. Macauley & L. Berkowitz (Eds.) Altruism and helping behavior. New York: Academic Press.
  37. ^ Azrin, N. & Lindsley, O.(1956). The reinforcement of cooperation between children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 2, 100-102
  38. ^ Mithaug, E.D., & Burgess, R.L.(1968). The effects of different reinforcement contingencies in the development of social cooperation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 6, 402-426.
  39. ^ Vogler, R.E., Masters, W.M. & Merrill, G.S.(1970). Shaping cooperative behavior in young children. Journal of Psychology, 74, 181-186.
  40. ^ Vogler, R.E., Masters, W.M., & Merrill, G.S.(1971). Extinction of cooperative behavior as a function of acquisition by shaping or instruction. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 119, 233-240.
  41. ^ Doland, D.J. & Adelberg, K.(1967). The learning of sharing behavior. Child Development, 38, 695-700
  42. ^ Gelfand, D.M., Hartmann, D.P., Cromer, C.C., Smith, C.L., & Page, B.C.(1975). The effects of instructional prompts and praise on children's donation rates. Child Development, 46, 980-983
  43. ^ Fisher, W.F.(1963). Sharing in preschool as a function of the amount and type of reinforcement. Genetic Psychology Mongraph, 68, 215-245.
  44. ^ Altman, K.(1971). Effects of cooperative response acquisition on social behavior during free play. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 12, 387-395
  45. ^ Hartmann, D.P., Gelfand, D.M., Smith, C.L., Paul, S.C., Cromer, C.C., Page, B.C. & Lebenta, D.V.(1976). Factors affecting the acquisition and elimination of children's donating behavior. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 21, 328-338
  46. ^ Fagot, B.I.., & Patterson, G.R.(1969). An in vivo analysis of reinforcing contingencies for sex role behaviors in the preschool child. Developmental Psychology
  47. ^ Lamb, M.E. & Roopnarine, J.L. (1979). Peer influences on sex role deelopment in preschoolers. Child Development, 50, 1219-1222
  48. ^ Lamb, M.E., Easterbrooks, M.A., & Holden, G.(1980). Reinforcement and punishment among preschoolers: Characteristics and correles. Child Development, 51, 1230-1236
  49. ^ Serbin, L.O'Leary, K., Kent, R., & Tonick, I.(1973). A comparison of teacher responses to pre-academic and problem behavior of boys and girls. Child Development, 44, 796-804
  50. ^ Serbin, L., Connors, J., & Citron, C.(1978). Environmental control of independent and dependant behaviors in preschool boys and girls: A model for early independence training. Sex Roles, 4, 867-875
  51. ^ Coie, J.D. & Kupersmidt, J.B. (1983). A Behavioral Analysis of Emerging Social Status in Boys' Groups.Child Development, Vol. 54, No. 6, 1400-1416
  52. ^ Allen, K.E., Hart, B., Buell, J.S., Harris, F.R. & Wolf, M.M. (1964).Effects of Social Reinforcement on Isolate Behavior of a Nursery School Child. Child Development, Vol. 35(2), 511-518
  53. ^ Pelaez-Nogueras, M., & Gewirtz, J. L. (1995). The learning of moral behavior: A behavior-analytic approach. In W. M. Kurtines & J.L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Moral behavior: An introduction, (pp. 173–199). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  54. ^ Patterson, G.R (2002). "Etiology and Treatment of Child and Adolescent Antisocial Behavior". The Behavior Analyst Today. 3 (2): 133–145.
  55. ^ Snyder,J., Stoolmiller,M., Patterson, G.R., Schrepferman,L.,Oeser,J., Johnson,K., & Soetaert, D. (2003). The Application of Response Allocation Matching to Understanding Risk Mechanisms in Development: The Case of Young Children’s Deviant Talk and Play, and Risk for Early-Onset Antisocial Behavior. The Behavior Analyst Today, 4 (4), 435-453.Behavior Analyst Online
  56. ^ Snyder,J., & Patterson, G.R. (1995). Individual differences in social aggression: A test of a reinforcement model of socialization in the natural environment. Behavior Therapy, 26, 371-391.
  57. ^ Snyder,J., & Patterson, G.R. (1995). Individual differences in social aggression: A test of a reinforcement model of socialization in the natural environment. Behavior Therapy, 26, 371-391.
  58. ^ ibid
  59. ^ Robert G. Wahler (2004): Direct and Indirect Reinforcement Processes in Parent Training. JEIBI 1 (2), Pg. 120-128
  60. ^ Patterson, G.R., Reid, J.B. & Eddy, J.M.(2002). A brief history of the Oregon model. In J.B Reid, G.R. Patterson, & J. Snyder (Eds.) Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: A developmental analysis and model for interventions. APA Press
  61. ^ Patterson, G.R. (1977). A three stage functional analysis for children's coercive behaviors: A tactic for developing a performance theory. In D. Baer, B.C. Etzel, & J.M. L. Blanc (Eds). New developments in behavioral research: Theories, methods, and applications in honour of Sidney W. Bijou (pp. 59-79). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  62. ^ Patterson, G.R. & Cobb, J.A.(1973). Stimulus control for classes of noxious behavior. In J.F. Knutson (Ed.). The control of aggression: Implications from basic research (pp. 144-199). Chicago: Adline
  63. ^ Osnes, P.G. and Adelinis, J. (2005).Correspondence Training, Rule Governance, Generalization,and Stimulus Control: Connections or Disconnections? Behavioral Development Bulletin, 1(1), 48-55 BAO
  64. ^ Alicia Bevill-Davis, Tom J. Clees & David L. Gast (2004): Correspondence Training: A Review of the Literature. JEIBI 1 (1), 14-27 BAO
  65. ^ Peleaz, M. & Moreno, R.(1998). A taxonomy of rules and their correspondence in rule governed behavior. Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis, 24(2), 197-214.
  66. ^ Snyder, J.J., McEachern, A., Schrepferman, L., Zettle, R., Johnson, K., Swink, N. and McAlpine, C. (2006): Rule-Governance, Correspondence Training, and Discrimination Learning: A Developmental Analysis of Covert Conduct Problems. SLP-ABA, 1(1), 43-65 BAO
  67. ^ Barry, L.M. and Haraway, D.L. (2005). Behavioral Self-Control Strategies for Young Children. JEIBI 2 (2), 79-89 BAO
  68. ^ Kendler, H. & Kendler, T. (1975). From discrimination learning to cogntive development: A neobehavioristic odyessey. In W.K. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive processes (Vol 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associaties.
  69. ^ Dunst, C.J., Raab, M., Wilson, L.L. and Parkey, C.(2007). Relative Efficiency Of Stimulation. The Behavior Analyst Today 8(2), 226-236. BAO
  70. ^ Rondal, J.A. and Docquier, L (2006). Maternal Speech To Children With Down Syndrome: An Update - SLP - ABA, 1.(3), Page 218-226 BAO
  71. ^ Hutto, M. (2003).Latency to learn in contingency studies of young children with disabilities or developmental delays Bridges, 1(5), 1-16. [2]
  72. ^ Morison, Sara J., and Ann-Louise Ellwood. "Resiliency in the Aftermath of Deprivation: A Second Look at the Development of Romanian Orphanage Children." Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 46.4 (Oct 2000): 717. Academic OneFile. Gale. University of Minnesota Duluth. 25 Feb. 2008
  73. ^ Greenwood, C.R., Hart, B., Walker, D. & Risley, T.(1994). The opportunity to respond and academic performance revisited: A behavioral theory of developmental retardation and its prevention. In R. Gardener, D.M. Sainato, J.O. Cooper, T.E. Heron, W.L. Heward, J. Eshleman, & T.A. Grossi (Eds.), Behavior analysis in education: Focus on measurably superior instruction (pp. 161-171) Pacific Grove, CA: Brookes-Cole
  74. ^ Greenwood, Ward & Luze: (2003) The Early Communication Indicator (ECI) for Infants and Toddlers: What It Is, Where It’s Been, and Where It Needs to Go. The Behavior Analyst Today, 3 (4), 383 -392 BAO
  75. ^ Greer,D., Keohane, D. & Healy (2002) Quality and Comprehensive Applications of Behavior Analysis to Schooling. The Behavior Analyst Today, 3 (2), 120-132
  76. ^ Greenwood, C.R., Carta, J.J., Hart, B., Kamps, D., Terry, D., Delquardi, J.C., Walker, D., & Risley, T.R.(1992). Out of the laboratory and into the community: Twenty-six years of applied behavior analysis at Juniper Gardens Children Center. American Psychologist, 47, 1464-1474
  77. ^ Zentall T.R, Galizio M, Critchfield T.S. (2002) Categorization, concept learning, and behavior analysis: An introduction. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 78:237–248
  78. ^ Goldiamond, I. (1966). Percetion, language, and conceptualization rules. In B. Kleinmutz (Ed.), Carnegie Institute of Technology Annual Symposium on Cognition. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
  79. ^ Becker, W.C. (1971). Teaching concepts and operations, or how to make kids smart. In W.C. Becker (Ed.), An empirical basis for changing education. Science research associates. Palo Alto, CA.
  80. ^ Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton.
  81. ^ Herrnstein, R. 1990. Levels of stimulus control: A. functional approach. Cognition, 37, 133-166.
  82. ^ Quine, W.V.O. (1953). From a logical point of view. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  83. ^ Quine, W.V.O,(1960). Word and Object. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
  84. ^ Hawkins, A.S. (1964). Verbal identification of stimulus components in ambiguously named compounds. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1, 227-240
  85. ^ Steiner, T.E. & Sobel, R. (1968). Intercomponent association formation during paired-associate training with compound stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77, 275-280.
  86. ^ Blackledge: (2003) An Introduction to Relational Frame Theory: Basics and Applications - The Behavior Analyst Today, 3 (4), 421-430BAO
  87. ^ Yvonne Barnes-Holmes, Louise McHugh, & Dermot Barnes-Holmes (2004) Perspective-Taking and Theory of Mind: A Relational Frame Account, The Behavior Analyst Today, 5 (1), 15-25BAO
  88. ^ Hayes S.C, Hayes L.J. (1992). Verbal relations and the evolution of behavior analysis. American Psychologist.47:1383–1395.
  89. ^ Roche B, Barnes-Holmes Y, Barnes-Holmes D, Stewart I, O'Hora D.(2002). Relational Frame Theory: A new paradigm for the analysis of social behavior. The Behavior Analyst.25:75–91
  90. ^ Esper, E.A. (1925). A technique for the experimental investigation of associative inference in artificial linguistic systems. Language Monographs No. 1.
  91. ^ Wetherby, B.(1978). Miniature language and the functional analysis of verbal behavior. In R. Schiefelbusch (Ed.), Bases of language intervention (pp. 397-448). Baltimore: University Park Press.
  92. ^ Sidman M. (2000).Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior.74:127–146. [PubMed]
  93. ^ Krasner, L. (1958). Studies of conditioning of verbal behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 55, 148-170.
  94. ^ Salzinger, K. (1959). Experimental manipulation of verbal behavior: A review. Journal of General Psychology, 61, 65-94
  95. ^ Salzinger, K. (1967). The problem of response class in verbal behavior. In K. Salzinger and S. Salzinger (Eds.), Research in verbal behavior and some neurophysical implications. Academic Press, New York.
  96. ^ Sailor, W. (1971). Reinforcement and generalization of productive plural allomorphs in two retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 4, 305-310.
  97. ^ Baer, D.M.(1982). The imposition of structure on behavior and the demolition of behavioral structures. In H.E. Howe (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, 29, 217-254.
  98. ^ Baer, D.M. & Guess, D. (1973). Teaching productive noun suffixes to severely retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 77, 498-505.
  99. ^ Andronis, P.T., Lang, T.V.J, & Goldiamond, I. (1997). Contingency adduction of “symbolic aggression” by pigeon. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 16, 10-23.
  100. ^ Bucher, B. & Schneider, R.E. (1973). Acquisition and generalization of conservation by pre-schoolers, using operant training. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 16, 187-204.
  101. ^ Waghorn, L. & Sullivan, E.V. (1970). The exploration of transition rules in conservation of quantity (substance) using film mediated modeling. Acta Psychologica, 32, 65-80.
  102. ^ Field, D. (1987). A review of preschool conservation training: An analysis of analyses. Developmental Review, 7, 210-251.
  103. ^ Feild (1987)
  104. ^ Englemann, S.E.(1968). Relating operant techniques to programming and teaching. Journal of School Psychology, 6, 89-96.
  105. ^ Calkin AB (2005). "Precision teaching: the standard celeration charts" (PDF). Behav Analyst Today. 6 (4): 207–16.
  106. ^ “Child Development” Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. 2001. 5 February 2008. http://www.nwrel.org/request/june01/child.html
  107. ^ Meltz , Barbara F. “Zora and the explorer” The Boston Globe October 22, 2007 Globe Newspaper Company 5 February 2008 http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2007/10/22/zora_and_the_explorer
  108. ^ “Language Development In Children” Child Development Institute, LLC 1998- 2007. 5 February 2008. http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/development/language_development.shtml
  109. ^ Savelsbergh, G.J.P. (2005) Discovery Of Motor Development: A Tribute To Esther Thelen. The Behavior Analyst Today, 6(4), 243-249
  110. ^ Dennis, W.(1960). Causes of retardation among institutional children: Iran. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 96, 47-59.
  111. ^ Dennis, W. & Najarian, P.(1957). Infant development under environmental handicap. Psychological Monograph, 71(No. 436) .
  112. ^ Sayegh, Y. & Dennis, W.(1965). The effects of supplementary experience upon behavioral development of infants in institutions. Child Development, 36, 81-90.
  113. ^ Masiello,T., & Tucker, L .(2006). Influences of treadmill training on the motor developmentof infants with and without disabilities. Bridges, 4(5), 1-17. [3]
  114. ^ Cautilli, J.D.& Dziewolska, H. (2005). A Brief Report: Can Contingent Imitation Reinforce Truck Lifting In A Three-Month-Old Infant? The Behavior Analyst Today, 6.(4), 229 -234.BAO
  115. ^ Dziewolska, H. & Cautilli, J.D. (2006). The Effects of a Motor Training Package on Minimally Assisted Standing Behavior in a Three- Month-Old Infant. The Behavior Analyst Today, 7.(1), 111-124BAO
  116. ^ Cautilli, J.D. & Dziewolska, H. (2006). Brief Report: The Use of Opportunity to Respond and Practice to increase efficiency of the stepping reflex in a five-month-old infant - The Behavior Analyst Today, 7(4), 538-547.BAO
  117. ^ Ferster, C.B.(1973). A functional analysis of depression. American Psychologist, 28, 857-870.
  118. ^ Hops, H(1992). Parental depression and child behaviour problems: Implications for behavioural family intervention. Behavior Change, 9(3), 126-138.
  119. ^ Hops, H., Bglan, A., Sherman, L. Arhr, J., Freidman, L. & Osteen, V.(1987). Home observation of family interactions of depressed woman. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(3), 341-346
  120. ^ Biglan, A., Hops, H., & Sherman, L.(1988). Coercive family processes and maternal depression. In R.D. Peters & R.J. McMahon (Eds.). Social learning and systems approaches to marriage and family. (pp. 72-103). New York: Brunner/Mazel.
  121. ^ Biglan, A., Rothlind, J., Hops, H., & Sherman, L.(1989). Impact of distressed and aggressive behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 98(3), 218-228.
  122. ^ Kanter,J. W, Cautilli, J.D., Busch, A.M. & Baruch, D.E. (2005). Toward a Comprehensive Functional Analysis of Depressive Behavior: Five Environmental Factors and a Possible Sixth and Seventh. The Behavior Analyst Today, 6.(1), 65-74.BAO
  123. ^ In addition, to loss of reinforcement the loss of contingency between behavior and reinforcement can also lead to depression
  124. ^ Golden, J. (2007). Editorial – Introduction - Children with behavioral and emotional problems: Is their behavior explained only by complex learning, or do internal motives have a role? International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 3(4), 449-476.
  125. ^ Aideuis, D.(2007).Promoting Attachment and Emotional Regulation of Children with Complex Trauma Disorder. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 3(4), 546-555.BAO
  126. ^ Dunst,C.J., Raab, M., Trivette, C.M., Parkey, C., Gatens, M., Wilson, L.L., French, J., Hamby, D.W. (2007). Child and Adult Social-Emotional Benefits of Response-Contingent Child Learning Opportunities. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 4(2),379-391. BAO
  127. ^ Commons, M. L. & Miller, P. M. (2001) A Quantitative Behavioral Model of Developmental Stage Based upon the Model of Hierarchical Complexity. The Behavior Analyst Today, 2 (3), 222-252BAO.
  128. ^ Commons, M. L., Trudeau, E. J., Stein, S. A., Richards, F. A., Krause, S. R. (1998). The existence of developmental stages as shown by the hierarchical complexity of tasks Developmental Review, 8(3). 237-278.
  129. ^ Commons, M. L., & Miller, P. M. (1998). A quantitative behavior-analytic theory of development. Mexican Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 24(2) 153-180.
  130. ^ Novak, G. & Pelaez, M. (2004). Child and adolescent development: A behavioral systems approach. Sage
  131. ^ Novak, G. & Pelaez, M.(2002). A behavior-analytic developmental model is better. Behavior and Brain Sciences, 25, 466-468.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Josh.Pritchard.DBA/ABA_sandbox&oldid=383519770"