SO3_AF5010

docx

School

California State University, Los Angeles *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

5010

Subject

Chemistry

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

2

Uploaded by DrCrow16733

Report
Alicia Flores Objectives 3 Kunnavatana et al. (2018) 1. According to Kunnanvatana et al. (2018), what is one example of why extinction is not always a reasonable procedure to prescribe. It is not always a reasonable procedure when behaviors are dangerous and unsafe to implement extinction. (prescribe is because resources may not always be available to ensure that extinction is implemented with integrity) 2. What were the three individual parameter sensitivity values (parameters of reinforcement)? Describe each value. Quality: in regards to preference for stimulus Magnitude: in regards to duration of access Immediacy: in regards to the delay between behavior and reinforcer delivery 3. What was the purpose of the individual parameter sensitivity assessment in Experiment 1? The purpose of the individual parameter sensitivity assessment in Experiment 1 was to access participants’ sensitivity to quality, magnitude, and immediacy using random responses and reinforcers that maintain problem behaviors. 4. Why were token economies used for both Sabrina and Rufus in Experiment 1 and 2? Explain. Token economies were used for both Sabrina and Rufus because they both engaged in multiple problem behaviors between sessions and during exposure trials. Problem behaviors for both participants may have been escape maintained and evoked by attending sessions and being given instructions. 5. What were both Max and Sabrina found to be sensitive for in Experiment 2? Both Max and Sabrina were found to be most sensitive to quality of reinforcement in Experiment 2. Mace et al. (2010) 1. In Mace et al. (2010), what was suggested about the clinical applications of differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) in regard to treatment relapse? In Mace et al. (2010), it was suggested that a contributing factor to treatment relapse may be that DRA strengthens the persistence of unwanted behaviors when the treatment is compromised.
Alicia Flores Objectives 3 2. What is the purpose of Experiment 1 of Mace et al. (2010)? The purpose of experiment 1 was to establish whether DRA increases the resistance to extinction of target behavior in individuals with developmental disabilities. 3. In Experiment 1 of Mace et al. (2010), what alternative responses were reinforced during the DRA phases of the study? Andy and Jackie: appropriate toy play Tom: appropriate requests for food In experiment 1, the alternative responses to be reinforced during Andy and Jackie’s DRA phase was appropriate toy play. For Tom, the alternative responses to be reinforced were appropriate requests for food. 4. In Experiment 1 of Mace et al. (2010), what strategies were implemented in the extinction phases of the study? Response blocking Withholding reinforcers after problem behaviors In the extinction phase of Experiment 1, response blocking and withholding reinforcers that were maintaining behaviors were implemented. 5. What did the results of Experiment 1 of Mace et al. (2010) demonstrate? Persistence-strengthening effects of DRA on target behavior; associated w/ greater resistance to change during extinction The results of Experiment 1 demonstrated the persistence-strengthening effects of DRA on target behavior. DRA reduced occurrences of target behaviors and was associated with greater resistance to change during the extinction phase.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help