Operant Contingencies in Everyday Persistence

The Core Unit of Operant Analysis

An antecedent sets the occasion for a response. The response produces a consequence. This sequence forms the three-term contingency. Operant behavior emerges from such relations. Reinforcement increases the future probability of the response. Punishment decreases it. Skinner identified this unit because it captures environmental interactions without invoking internal states. Consequences shape behavior directly. Antecedents signal when responses pay off. Thus, the contingency explains learning through selection by consequences.

Reinforcement contingencies strengthen responses. Positive reinforcement adds a stimulus after the response. Negative reinforcement removes a stimulus. Both raise response rates. Punishment contingencies weaken responses. Positive punishment adds an aversive stimulus. Negative punishment removes a appetitive stimulus. Effects depend on individual history. A stimulus reinforcing for one person punishes another. Contingencies operate continuously in daily life.

Reinforcement in Action: Coffee Ritual

Morning alarm rings. I drag myself to the kitchen. Brew coffee. Aroma fills the room. First sip delivers warmth and alertness. Behavior of preparing coffee increases. This exemplifies positive reinforcement. The antecedent is the alarm and groggy state. The response is grinding beans, boiling water, pouring. The consequence is the pleasurable taste and caffeine effect. Contingency: alarm (discriminative stimulus) – preparation – coffee consumption. Rate of early rising ties to this outcome. Without coffee, mornings drag.

Negative reinforcement appears in deadline avoidance. Email notification pings about a report due. I open the laptop immediately. Complete the task. Notification stops. Anxiety drops. Behavior of prompt starting persists. Antecedent: the ping and looming deadline. Response: typing and submitting. Consequence: removal of the alert and worry. Thus, escape maintains the habit. Delays would escalate pressure.

Punishment Encounter: Speeding Ticket

Highway stretches empty. Foot presses accelerator. Speedometer climbs past limit. Sirens wail behind. Officer issues ticket. Fine deducts from wallet. Behavior of speeding decreases. This is positive punishment. Antecedent: open road and urge to arrive faster. Response: exceeding 80 mph. Consequence: added fine and lecture. Contingency locks in caution. Future drives stay under limit near that stretch.

Negative punishment hit during college. Borrowed friend’s notes. Forgot to return before exam. Friend withholds future loans. Access to materials vanishes. Behavior of careless borrowing stops. Antecedent: rushed schedule. Response: keeping notes overnight. Consequence: removal of borrowing privilege. Thus, prompt returns become routine.

Schedules and Matching in Maintenance

Coffee preparation follows a fixed-interval schedule in some ways. Weekday mornings demand it at 6 AM. Reward arrives predictably after waking. Scalloped pattern emerges: slow start, rush near time. Weekends shift to variable-ratio. Brew only when craving hits unpredictably. Persistence holds despite delays. Matching law applies across beverages. Time allocated to coffee versus tea matches reinforcement obtained. Stronger brew pulls more effort. Weaker tea gets ignored.

Speeding avoidance ties to variable-ratio punishment. Tickets occur unpredictably. One infraction deters for months. Matching emerges in route choice. Highways with rare patrols receive more speed. Patrolled streets get compliance. Relative punishment rates dictate allocation. Thus, behavior distributes proportionally.

Interplay and Persistence

Reinforcement builds habits. Punishment suppresses alternatives. Coffee ritual endures because positive consequences outweigh occasional burns. Ticket memory fades until another open road tempts. Schedules stretch resistance to extinction. Variable reinforcement proves toughest to break. Matching predicts shifts when options change. New cafe offers better brew. Allocation tilts. Old machine gathers dust.

Negative reinforcement in work avoidance compounds. Deadlines cluster. Prompt responses escape piling aversives. Ratio strain hits during overload. Breaks increase. Punishment from missed promotions reins it back. Contingencies overlap daily. Analysis reveals why habits stick despite intent to change.

Broader Implications from Contingencies

Three-term units scale to complex repertoires. Social interactions follow similar patterns. Smile prompts conversation. Laughter reinforces sharing. Scorn punishes oversharing. Schedules govern relationships. Intermittent praise maintains effort. Constant criticism extinguishes. Matching allocates time across friends based on payoff. Understanding contingencies aids self-modification. Alter antecedents or consequences deliberately. Behavior follows suit.

Cooper, J., Heron, T., & Heward, W. (2020). Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson.

Fisher, W., Piazza, C. & Roane, H. (2021). Handbook of applied behavior analysis. Guilford Press.

Normand, M. P., Dallery, J., & Slanzi, C. M. (2021). Leveraging applied behavior analysis research and practice in the service of public health. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 54(2), 457–483.

Bouton, M. E., & Balleine, B. W. (2019). Prediction and control of operant behavior: What you see is not all there is. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 19(2), 202–212.

Campanaro, A. M., Vladescu, J. C., Kodak, T., DeBar, R. M., & Nippes, K. C. (2020). Comparing skill acquisition under varying onsets of differential reinforcement: A preliminary analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 53(2), 690–706.

_____________________________________________________________________________-

PS560

Begin by describing the three-term contingency, and explain why it is described as the basic unit of analysis for operant behavior. In reviewing the contingencies of reinforcement and punishment, discuss how each set of contingencies has an effect on an individual’s behavior.

Choose a behavior from your own experience that has been reinforced, and identify whether that behavior was positively or negatively reinforced, outlining the specific three term contingency of that operant behavior. Next, choose a behavior from your own experience that has been punished and identify whether that behavior was positively or negatively punished; outline the specific three term contingency of that operant behavior. Finally, in either of those behaviors, discuss how matching law or schedules of reinforcement may contribute to the maintenance of the behavior under certain circumstances.

PS560 APA References

 

PS560 Course Textbooks

 

Cooper, J., Heron, T., & Heward, W. (2020). Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson.

Fisher, W., Piazza, C. & Roane, H. (2021). Handbook of applied behavior analysis. The

Guilford Press.

 

PS560 Readings

 

Unit 1

 

Allyon, T., & Michael, J. (1959). The psychiatric nurse as a behavioral engineer. Journal of

The Experimental Analysis of Behavior 2, 323–334.

 

Bailey, J. S. (2000). A futurist perspective for applied behavior analysis. In J. Austin & J. E. Carr (Eds.), Handbook of applied behavior analysis. Context Press.

 

Furman, T. M. & Lepper, T. L. (2018). Applied behavior analysis: Definitional

difficulties. Psychological Record, 68(1), 103–105.

 

Normand, M. P., Dallery, J., & Slanzi, C. M. (2021). Leveraging applied behavior analysis

research and practice in the service of public health. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 54(2), 457–483.

 

Schwartz, I. S., & Kelly, E. M. (2021). Quality of life for people with disabilities: Why applied behavior analysts should consider this a primary dependent variable. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 46(3), 159–172.

 

Storey, K., & Haymes, L. (2017). Case studies in applied behavior analysis for students and adults with disabilities. Charles C Thomas.

 

Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review 20(2),

158–177.

 

Unit 2

Collins, B. C., Lo, Y., Park, G., & Haughney, K. (2018). Response prompting as an ABA-based

instructional approach for teaching students with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 50(6), 343–355.

 

Cowie, S., Gomes-Ng, S., Hopkinson, B., Bai, J. Y. H., & Landon, J. (2020). Stimulus control

depends on the subjective value of the outcome. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 114(2), 216–232.

 

Hendrickson, J. M., Gable, R. A., & Shores, R. E. (2010). The ecological perspective:

Setting events and behavior. The Pointer, 31(3), 40–44.

 

Unit 3

Keller, F. S., & Schoenfeld, W. N. (1950). Psychology and the reflex. In Principles of

psychology: A systematic text in the science of behavior (pp. 15–35). Appleton-Century-Crofts.

 

Keller, F. S., & Schoenfeld, W. N. (1950). Respondent conditioning. In Principles of psychology:

A systematic text in the science of behavior (pp. 15–35). Appleton-Century-Crofts.

 

Stussi, Y., Ferrero, A., Pourtois, G., & Sander, D. (2019). Achievement motivation modulates

Pavlovian aversive conditioning to goal-relevant stimuli. NPJ Science of Learning, 4, 4.

 

Unit 4

Baron, A. & Galizio, M. (2005). Positive and negative reinforcement: Should the distinction

be preserved? The Behavior Analyst, 28, 85–98.

 

Bouton, M. E., & Balleine, B. W. (2019). Prediction and control of operant behavior: What

you see is not all there is. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 19(2), 202–212.

 

Brewer, A., Li, A., Leon, Y., Pritchard, J., Turner, L., & Richman, D. (2018). Toward a better

basic understanding of operant-respondent interactions: Translational research on phobias. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 18(4), 328–332.

 

Senuik, H. A., Williams, L. W., Reed, D. D., & Wright, J. W. (2015). An examination of

matching with multiple response alternatives in professional hockey. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 15(3–4), 152–160.

 

Unit 5

Campanaro, A. M., Vladescu, J. C., Kodak, T., DeBar, R. M., & Nippes, K. C. (2020).

Comparing skill acquisition under varying onsets of differential reinforcement: A preliminary analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 53(2), 690–706.

 

Johnson, K. A., Vladescu, J. C., Kodak, T., & Sidener, T. M. (2017). An assessment of

differential reinforcement procedures for learners with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50(2), 290–303.

 

May, B. K., & Catrone, R. (2021). Reducing rapid eating in adults with down syndrome: Using

token reinforcement to increase interresponse time between bites. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 21(3), 273–281.

 

Unit 6

Carbone, V. J. (2019). The motivational and discriminative functions of motivating operations.

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 112(1), 10–14.

 

Edwards, T. L., Lotfizadeh, A. D., & Poling, A. (2019). Motivating operations and stimulus

control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 112(1), 1–9.

 

Michael, J. (1993). Establishing operations. The Behavior Analyst, 16, 191–206.

van Haaren, F. (2020). Extinction revisited: Implications for application. Behavior Analysis:

Research and Practice, 20(1), 36–42.

 

Wulfert, E. (2013). Rule-governed behavior. Salem Press Encyclopedia of Health.

Unit 7

Lattal, K. A. (2013). The five pillars of the experimental analysis of behavior. In Madden, G.,

Dube, W. V., Hackenberg, T. D., Hanley, G. P., & Lattal, K. A. (Eds.). APA handbook of behavior analysis, Volume 1: Methods and principles (pp. 33–63). American Psychological Association.

 

Unit 8

Fryling, M. (2017). The functional independence of Skinner’s verbal operants: Conceptual

and applied implications. Behavioral Interventions 32, 70–78.

 

LaFrance, D. L., & Tarbox, J. (2020). The importance of multiple exemplar instruction in the

establishment of novel verbal behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 53(1), 10–24.

 

Miguel, C. F. (2018). Problem-solving, bidirectional naming, and the development of verbal

repertoires. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 18(4), 340–353.

 

Unit 9

Barens-Holmes, D., Finn, M., McEnteggart, C., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2018). Derived stimulus relations and their role in a behavior-analytic account of human language and cognition. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 41(1), 155–173.

 

 

 

Belisle, J., Paliliunas, D., Lauer, T., Giamanco, A., Lee, B., & Sickman, E. (2020). Derived

relational responding and transformations of function in children: A review of applied behavior-analytic journals. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 36(1), 115–145.

 

Ming, S., Moran, L., & Stewart, I. (2014). Derived relational responding: Applications and future directions for teaching individuals with autism spectrum disorders. European Journal of Behavior Analysis.

 

Perez, W. F., de Azevedo, S. P., Gomes, C. T., & Vichi, C. (2021). Equivalence relations and

the contextual control of multiple derived stimulus functions. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 115(1), 405–420.

Törneke, N. (2010). Derived relational responding as the fundamental element in human

language. In Learning RFT: An introduction to relational frame theory and its clinical application (pp. 59–89). Context Press.