Association for Behavior Analysis International

Discriminable shifts between rich and lean schedules of reinforcement can produce maladaptive disruptions in behavior. The disruptions have been studied in rats, pigeons, monkeys, and humans using a variety of procedures to arrange transitions between rich and lean schedules. The presentations in this symposium represent some basic and applied efforts to investigate this phenomenon and to expand findings to novel areas of the field. The first presentation investigated effects of the rich-lean transition on water consumption in non-thirsty rats; the second, effects of warning pigeons of an upcoming transition to a lean schedule of reinforcement; the third, pausing and escape in children with autism in the presence of stimuli associated with the rich-lean transition; and the fourth, the use of aversive features of the rich-lean transition to correct errors when teaching skills to children with autism. Our aim is to promote the dialogue between basic researchers, applied researchers, and practitioners interested behavior during transitions between rich and lean schedules.

Differential pausing in signaled transitions from more favorable to less favorable conditions has been demonstrated with humans and animals in the experimental analysis of behavior. Analysis of the variables responsible for pausing could be useful in understanding problem behavior in transitions between activities for children with autism. We conducted two experiments to extend previous research on pausing and escape during transitions between relatively rich and lean schedules of reinforcement. Individuals with autism spectrum disorders served as participants. The purpose of the first experiment was to replicate previous research on pausing in a two-component multiple schedule with a richer and a leaner schedule of reinforcement. The purpose of the second experiment was to examine whether escape responses would be emitted under the same conditions as pausing. In addition, we examined whether the participants would emit an escape response that removed the schedule or the stimuli associated with the lean schedule. For 2 participants the longest median pause duration was in the LL transition type and for 2 participants the longest median pause duration was in the RL transition type. Mixed results were found when pausing duration data was compared to frequency of escape data.

Research on error correction procedures often include the manipulation of different prompting strategies (e.g., Carroll, Joachim, St. Peter, & Robinson, 2015) or reinforcement schedules (e.g., Hausman, Ingvarsson, & Kahng, 2014), both of which can improve independent responding and acquisition during discrete trial training. We extended error correction research with different schedules of reinforcement by incorporating rich-to-lean transitions following incorrect responses with three boys diagnosed with autism. In the rich-to-rich condition, there was no differential reinforcement and the more-preferred edible was presented regardless of correct responding. During the rich-to-lean condition, errors resulted in the participant receiving less-preferred edibles for the next three correct responses. In the final comparison, the rich-to-no reinforcement condition, errors resulted in no reinforcement for a single trial. The latter two conditions were the most efficient and effective procedures for improving accuracy for two of the three participants. This finding suggests that the aversive properties of rich-to-lean transitions might function to correct errors in the context of differential reinforcement.