Applied behavioral research is technological when "the techniques making up a particular behavioral application are completely identified and described." Thus, one should ask "whether a typically trained reader could replicate that procedure well enough to produce the same results, given only a reading of the description." (Baer et al., 1968, p. 95). A full description includes not only what to do when the target behavior occurs, but also what to do when other highly probable behaviors occur in that same situation. For example, a researcher may report that she instructed parents not to attend to their child when he whines. An informed reader might expect a temporary emotional reaction on the part of the child. What are parents to do when their child begins breaking things in the house? This behavior obviously cannot be ignored. A researcher concerned with technology would also report the procedural details for dealing with such anticipated side-effects.
This example also illustrates two other key points. First, to report that the parents subjected the child to an "extinction" procedure is insufficient. They might have ignored the whining, but they probably did not ignore destructive behaviors. A full description includes specifying the relationship of each behavior to its relevant antecedent and consequential events. To avoid confusion, we say that behaviors, not people, are reinforced, punished, extinguished, shaped, etc. (Catania, 1998). Second, while the parents may have mostly ignored the whining behavior, perhaps they occasionally gave into it. While this appears to be "primarily" extinction, these occasional reinforcers may have not only weakened the effectiveness of the procedure, but actually made matters worse: it is generally accepted that intermittently reinforced behavior is more resistant to extinction than continuously reinforced behavior. In application, procedures are carried out by people, and thus to ensure the integrity of treatment, their "procedural" behavior, in addition to the client's target behavior, should be observed and recorded (Baer et al. 1987).
Nonexample
Reports by classroom teachers, therapists, and teachers indicated that autistic children attending biweekly therapy sessions were unmotivated and engaged in frequent self-stimulatory behavior (e.g., rocking back and forth). It was agreed that a reasonable goal was to increase correct task responding from each child's academic curriculum (e.g., "touch your nose" versus "touch my nose"). Previous research suggested that identifying reinforcers for autistic children can be difficult, in that these children often do not respond to stimuli that interest other children (e.g., toys) or to social reinforcers (e.g., praise). The researchers were aware of the Premack Principle, which states that the opportunity to engage in a behavior that occurs frequently can be used to reinforce a behavior that occurs less often. With this in mind, they implemented the following intervention, which they described as follows. The children were prompted to engage in 3-5 seconds of self-stimulation following correct task responding, and the teacher combined this consequence with social reinforcement.
Example
Reports by classroom teachers, therapists, and teachers indicated that autistic children attending biweekly therapy sessions were unmotivated and engaged in frequent self-stimulatory behavior (e.g., rocking back and forth). It was agreed that a reasonable goal was to increase correct task responding from each child's academic curriculum (e.g., "touch your nose" versus "touch my nose"). Previous research suggested that identifying reinforcers for autistic children can be difficult, in that these children often do not respond to stimuli that interest other children (e.g., toys) or to social reinforcers (e.g., praise). The researchers were aware of the Premack Principle, which states that the opportunity to engage in a behavior that occurs frequently can be used to reinforce a behavior that occurs less often. With this in mind, they implemented the following intervention, which they described as follows. The children were prompted to engage in 3-5 seconds of self-stimulation following correct task responding. The teacher was told to combine this with praise. Various praise statements (e.g., "That's right! Good boy.") were written on a card that the teacher had in front of her, and on any given "correct" trial she was supposed to randomly select one and say it. If the child made an incorrect response or failed to respond within 5 s, the teacher said "No" and then presented the next trial. After two incorrect trials, the teacher used a correction procedure, in which she modeled a correct response, waited for the child to imitate it, and then provided the appropriate consequences.
Analysis
The first item is technologically problematic in a few ways. Reporting that the teacher was told to socially reinforce a child's correct responding is too imprecise. One teacher might have repeated the same phrase on each "correct" trial ("Good boy!") while another teacher may have varied her praise statements. Slight variations in procedure may produce slight or even large variations in responding. Second, there is no information about what the teacher did when a child responded incorrectly. Did she ignore the response? Prompt a correct response? Move to the next trial?
The second item is technologically more sound. The social reinforcement procedure is clear and is likely to produce less variation from teacher to teacher. Furthermore, the reader is given a full account on how the teacher responded when the child made an error or failed to respond at all, two scenarios sure to be encountered in any replication.
Related Source: Charlop, Kurtz, & Casey (1990)