Association for Behavior Analysis International

Behavioral variability is often adaptive; however, some individuals, such as individuals with autism, struggle to vary appropriately. Behavioral variability can be maintained using reinforcement and it has been suggested that behavioral variability may be an operant. This symposium includes presentations on basic and applied research on reinforced behavioral variability, as well as discussions of the theoretical implications of this research. The first presentation (Galizio and colleagues) will describe basic research conducted with pigeons investigating persistence and relapse of reinforced behavioral variability. The second presentation (Abreu-Rodrigues and colleagues) will describe basic research conducted with college students investigating the effects of response cost and variability contingencies on choice. The third presentation (Harris and Higbee) will describe applied research investigating variability of play behavior conducted with children with autism. The final presentation (Neuringer) will address the theoretical implications of studying reinforced behavioral variability, as well as the relevance of reinforced behavioral variability to other fields. Directions for translational research will be discussed (Podlesnik). The current presentations will examine reinforced behavioral variability from a variety of perspectives and illustrate the importance of studying reinforced behavioral variability in basic and applied research.

The present studies attempted to isolate the effects of response cost and variation requirements upon choice. In Study 1, college students chose between two alternatives. In Experiment 1, sequences had to differ from the previous five ones (VAR contingency) and include two (VAR 2) or five (VAR 5) switches. In Experiment 2, reinforcers were contingent to the emission of a unique sequence (REP contingency) with two (REP 2) or five (REP 5) switches. In Experiment 3, choice was between one vary (VAR 2 or VAR 5) and one repeat (REP 2 or REP 5) contingency. Participants preferred two to five switches under both VAR and REP contingencies (experiments 1 and 2). Preference for the REP alternative (Experiment 3) increased with the number of switches in the VAR alternative. In Study 2, pigeons chose between two alternatives with equal response costs (1 or 2 switches), but differing variation requirements (Lag 2 versus Lag 4, Lag 6 and Lag 8). Choice for the most lenient requirement tended to vary directly with the variation requirement. It was concluded that both response cost and variation contingencies may ascribe aversive properties to variation contexts, thus affecting choice between varying and repeating response sequences.

Unlike typically developing children, children with autism do not vary their play with toys. Instead, they often display repetitive, stereotypical movements. Recent studies in the area of variability have demonstrated that when response variability is treated as a behavioral operant, it can be increased by implementing a reinforcement contingency on a lag schedule. The purpose of this study was to determine whether three preschoolers with autism would vary their play actions when exposed to a lag schedule of reinforcement and physical prompting procedure. A multiple baseline across participants was used to evaluate the effectiveness of a lag schedule and manual prompting procedure on the play behavior of three children with autism. The intervention procedure was used to evaluate response variability while probes were conducted to see if variability generalized to two other similar play sets. All three participants demonstrated varied play actions in the presence of the lag schedule and prompting procedure. When the lag schedule was removed in a 2-week maintenance check, responding remained at high rates but stereotypical patterns of behavior were observed. This indicates a lag schedule and prompting procedure may be effective for evoking varied behavior in play in young children with autism.