running head: behavior modification …web.mnstate.edu/malonech/psy342/assignments/sample...

Behavior Modification 1

Running head: BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION THROUGH POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT AND SHAPING

Behavior Modification Through Positive Reinforcement and Shaping

Jane M. Doe

Minnesota State University Moorhead


Abstract

The field of behavior modification is based on the notion that one’s behavior can

be influenced and changed to become more socially acceptable and desirable. One’s

behavior can be controlled and manipulated through reinforcement and punishment,

which is known as the process of operant conditioning. This theory is also used in

reversing habits such as smoking or overeating and in enforcing the engagement of

healthier behaviors. Behaviors also can be learned through a process of shaping. The

new behavior is formed by reinforcing closer approximations of the wanted behavior

until the desired behavior is performed. The field of behavior modification has generated

many research studies that provide evidence that positive reinforcement and shaping

really do work to modify behaviors.


Behavior Modification Through Positive

Reinforcement and Shaping

The Behaviorism era began and grew in popularity when the psychoanalytic

theories of Freud became dissatisfying (Kazdin, 1978). Behavior modification through

operant conditioning occurs when reinforcements and punishments are used immediately

after the behavior is emitted. However, ceasing the use of the reinforcers can decrease

these reinforced behaviors. This process is called extinction. Behaviors will be

discontinued when they no longer result in desired responses. Shaping is a procedure

where closer approximations of the desired behavior are reinforced until the particular

behavior is performed by the individual. Theorists have hypothesized that reinforcing

socially acceptable behaviors will result in the continuation of them and punishing

behaviors will result in the extinction of them. It is important to remember the steps

needed to modify behavior. The reinforcement must by systematic and consistent.

Varying the type of reinforcement may not lead to the desired out come. It is also

important to promote generalization of the conditioned behavior to different settings.

This means that the individual should be able to not only display the rewarded behavior

in one setting, but should be able to carry those same actions to different situations. And

lastly, the reinforcement must be delivered immediately following the behavior. If this

does not occur, the individual may be unclear about which behavior is getting reinforced

or punished. Therefore, the individual will be unlikely to continue that particular desired

behavior. The reinforcers must be something desired by the participant otherwise the

behavior would be unlikely reinforced. On the same token, the punishers must be


something aversive for the subject. This paper explores research studies confirming and

disconfirming the effectiveness of behavior modification through the use of positive

reinforcement and shaping.

Early Research

B.F. Skinner and Edward L. Thorndike are the most noteworthy theorists of the

process called operant conditioning. These studies are the baseline for today’s ideas

about behavior modification. These animal research studies can also be transferred to

develop conclusions about modifying human behavior. Thorndike is known for his

“puzzle-box” experiment. He conducted his experiment by placing a hungry cat in a box

and recorded how long it took the cat to escape it by moving a barrier. He placed a small

piece of meat outside of the box as an incentive for learning to escape. The cat used the

process of trial-and-error to discover the solution to opening the box. Soon the cat was

able to escape and consumed the meat. The meat was reinforcing to the cat because not

only did it get out of the box, but it also got the opportunity to eat the meat. Thorndike

repeated this process numerous times and recorded the time on each trial. He noticed that

the cat took less and less time to escape after each trial. This shows that the cat was able

to learn a task faster when reinforced as opposed to no reinforcement because it had

something to work for. Therefore, learning and accomplishing the new task will result in

a desirable reward. (Kazdin, 1989). This study formed the foundation of the theory on

operant conditioning. By manipulating the use of reinforcement, one can control the rate

at which participants can complete a task. This study by Thorndike can be transferred to

the explanation of the modification of human behaviors. For example, children are more


likely to complete a task if they know they will be rewarded afterward. This will cause

them to finish it quickly in order to obtain the desired reward.

A study by A. Robert Sherman (1973) hypothesized that a person’s behavior will

increase if followed by rewards and decrease if followed by punishments. His study was

conducted in a natural environment of a first grade classroom. The researcher observed

the behavior in the classroom and noticed some disruptive students who would call out

answers without raising their hands. The teacher was then instructed by the researcher to

praise the students for any good behaviors and completely ignore students for any bad

behaviors. When students acted disruptively such as talking without raising their hand,

the teacher just ignored it. Ignoring the disruptive behaviors is punishing to those

students, because the attention is never brought to them. The two objectives of this study

are to stop the students from disrupting the class by calling out answers and to get the

students to raise their hands to answer questions. Disruptive students who see the other

students getting praise for raising their hands now see what they can do to get that same

positive attention. Sherman measured the behaviors emitted by the children after

manipulating the different levels of rewards and punishments. He compared the results

of the frequency of disruptive behaviors before and after the teacher changed her

strategies. The results showed that students rewarded with praise for acting desirable

continued that behavior frequently and engaged less frequently in the undesirable

behaviors. This study demonstrates effective behavior modification. (Sherman,1973).

This is a perfect example of modifying human behavior because the teacher was able to

control the students’ behaviors by virtually eliminating the disruptive behaviors.

Knowing what the students desire, in this case it was attention, the teacher only gave that


to them after they showed respectful, obedient behaviors. The teacher made receiving the

reinforcer (praise) contingent on showing respectful, obedient behaviors.

Nay (1976) explored a study by H. Leitenberg who set up a study using positive

reinforcement in a clinical setting. A 21-year old male had been hospitalized for almost 4

years and began to avoid social interaction. He secluded himself in his room, closing

himself from the outside world. The researcher first began working on his behavior by

defining the targeted behavior as initiating conversation with the nursing staff. He

wanted to enforce the boy to engage in three 90-minute conversations a day. The nurses

were told not to initiate any conversations and were to respond appropriately when the

boy initiated the conversation himself. Leitenberg noticed that waiting for the boy to

initiate conversation would not work. He then developed a system of reinforcements to

get the boy to engage in social interaction. The boy was told that for every two minutes

that he talked during the three sessions he would earn 5 minutes of listening to the radio

or watching television. He began talking to the nurses longer only after receiving the

reinforcers. He was later given five minutes of listening to the radio or watching

television for engaging in conversations with people other than the nurses. This slowing

shaped him into overcoming his social avoidance problem. Leitenberg recorded the time

that he engaged in social interaction. His results revealed that during the first two days of

the experiment when no reinforcement was used, the boy on average engaged in 4

minutes of conversation. On day thirty of the experiment, 20 days of reinforcing social

interaction had gone by. The young boy was now engaging on average 55 minutes of

conversation during the 90-minute session. (Nay, 1976) This study clearly follows the

behavior modification theory using positive reinforcement and shaping. The boy’s social


behavior only began to emerge with the presentation of rewards. He understood that if he

interacts with the nurses, he will receive reinforcement. He was reinforced precisely after

three minutes so this method was consistent and reliable; he new exactly which behavior

he was getting rewarded for. Also because listening to the radio and watching television

was desirable to him, this method of reinforcement worked for him.

Lowitz and Suib (1978) were able to reduce the frequency of thumb sucking of an

eight-year old girl. They did this by presenting the girl with pennies for every one minute

of not sucking her thumb. They met with her for five days and for about an hour each

time. Within about five sessions of the training, her thumb-sucking was eliminated.

( Kazdin, 1989). The young girl associated the elimination of the thumb-sucking and the

presentation of the reinforcer; pennies. This process of reinforcement was aimed at

eliminating a behavior by presenting a desirable reward for every response but the

undesired behavior. This follows the theory of behavior modification through the use of

positive reinforcement. The young girl only decreases the behavior when reinforcement

is used. Eventually the use of positive reinforcement will eliminate the behavior

completely. (Nay, 1976).

James K. Luiselli (1997) conducted a study involving an 8-year old boy, Don,

with Pervasive Developmental Disorder. Don had problems getting potty trained. This

study was performed in the classroom of his elementary school. The researcher had an

assistant who escorted Don to the restroom at scheduled times throughout the day. The

researcher first recorded Don’s behavior before reinforcing him. Don would refuse to go

to the restroom. He also continued to urinate in his diaper. After recording these

behaviors, Luiselli began the reinforcement phase. This phase consisted of singing fun


songs to reinforce him in the bathroom. This helped make the behavior more enjoyable

for him. Don was also given a drink of water out of his favorite water bottle for every

successful restroom trip. This was extremely reinforcing for Don because it was exciting

for him to drink out of his favorite water bottle. Luiselli documented the results of this

study and revealed that after three weeks of reinforcing Don, he had a 100% success rate

at becoming potty trained. This experiment provides evidence in favor of behavior

modification through positive reinforcement. Don was able to learn a new association

between successfully using the restroom and receiving a drink of water. Therefore, Don

viewed the behavior of using the restroom more enjoyable than before the

implementation of positive reinforcement strategies. What defined success in this

situation, though, was the 100% success rate; the target rate did indeed increase.

Philip A. Saigh (1980) conducted an investigation on a group of Lebanese

children in Beirut, Lebanon that the teacher had a hard time controlling. She wanted to

eliminate two behaviors: talking out of turn and leaving one’s seat without permission.

The teacher had originally experimented with negative reinforcement without any

success. After discovering that the students especially enjoyed swimming, Saigh

developed a method of modifying behaviors by combining swimming with good

behavior. The teacher would place a check on the board for every ten minutes the

students were well behaved. The check stood for ten minutes of swimming time for the

students. The results showed that before the positive reinforcement method was used, the

students displayed on average 18 disruptive behaviors. On the first day of implementing

the check system, behaviors dropped down to 4 incidents. This system was an easy and

effective way of teaching the students to learn respectful behaviors. Because the activity


was so enjoyable to the students, this system worked so well. The teacher was consistent

with reinforcing the students by giving them a check every ten minutes if they deserved

one. The students were then aware of exactly what behaviors were unacceptable and

which ones were acceptable.

Behaviors can also be modified through a process of shaping. This process

involves the presentation of a reinforcement after closer approximations to the desired

behaviors are displayed. This is clearly shown in a study performed by Jackson and

Wallace (1974). They conducted their study on an 8-year-old girl, Alice. Alice was

mentally retarded and had a voice that was virtually inaudible. Jackson and Wallace

designed a shaping method to get Alice to speak at a decibel level like her peers. They

started by giving her a token redeemable for beauty products for every increase in speak

volume she made. At first only slight increases of volume were reinforced. When Alice

consistently met the volume requirements, she received a token. After she reached the

volume requirement, she was not reinforced until she reached the next volume level.

They continued this process until she finally spoke at the same volume as her peers.

(Kazdin, 1989). Alice was continually reinforced until she displayed the desired behavior

of speaking loud enough to hear. She was reinforced immediately after the behavior was

emitted; therefore, she knew which behavior was getting rewarded. Alice was able to

learn an association between her speaking louder and receiving a reward. After

completing this therapy treatment, Alice was able to continue her audible voice without

getting reinforced by token, presumabye because natural social reinforcers took over.

The use of positive reinforcement has been considerably useful in the

modification of juvenile delinquent behavior. Delinquents tend to deviate from society to


get recognized and draw the attention to themselves. To correct their behavior,

researchers have tried punishing them for every behavior emitted. However, punishment

has shown to be somewhat unsuccessful in changing their behavior. Researchers then

tried methods of positive reinforcement aiming at teaching them socially acceptable

behaviors. Fixen, Phillips, Phillips, and Wolf (1976) conducted a study at a group home

of numerous delinquents. Researches began by defining the behaviors they wanted to

enforce and the behaviors they wanted to eliminate. They wanted to encourage the

adolescents to do chores, watch educational television, read the newspaper, and receive

good grades. The behaviors they wanted to eliminate were poor grades, aggressive talk,

lying, stealing, and fighting. Before implementing the reinforcement method, the

adolescents only engaged in, on average, 55% of their time to the daily tasks required of

them. The students were then given rewards such as going downtown, watching

television, and receiving an allowance for every good behavior shown. After about thirty

sessions of receiving rewards, the adolescent averaged 75% of their time to learned

acceptable behaviors. Later results revealed that the students who participated in this

method had fewer criminal offenses than did the juveniles that were not apart of this

program. (Kazdin, 1989). These students realized that there are other ways to get the

attention they desire. They were able to engage in socially acceptable behavior knowing

that they will be rewarded for it in the end. This type of attention, along with the

rewards, was desirable to the students therefore making this method successful.

Not only can the use of positive reinforcement be used to promote socially

acceptable behaviors and eliminate disruptive and undesirable behaviors, it can also be

used to save the life of a patient suffering from anorexia. Clinicians have been using this


method to enforce the patient to eat and gain weight. They do this by presenting rewards

every time he/she successful eats. Kadzin (1989) described at study conducted by

Pertschuk, Edwards, and Pomerleau in 1978 involving severely anorexic patients. They

administered the program by giving patients the opportunity to earn rewards for every

one-half pound they gained. About two weeks into the program the patients gained an

average of 9.3 pounds. Patients who do not agree to this program continued to lose

weight. Patients who did gain weight had a goal and were able to reach that goal by

earning incentives. This pushed the patients even more to overcome their sickness. The

results of this study correlate with the theory on behavior modification. The researchers

were able to control the behaviors emitted by the patients through rewarding them every

time they performed the desired behavior. Like in the previous studies, these patients

were able to develop a relationship with gaining weight and obtaining a reward. The

more they ate, the more reward they received making the behavior of eating more

desirable for the patient.

Another important behavior that needs to be enforced is wearing safety belts

while in a moving vehicle. Kazdin explored an example of enforcing the usage of safety

belts by Sowers-Hoag, Thyer, and Baily, (1987). These researchers conducted a study on

158 children attending day care. Assistants would escort the children to the car and noted

whether or not the child belted himself or herself before leaving the day care. Only about

1% of the children successfully did this. After recording the baseline statistics, the

researchers implemented a method where they informed the children about the

importance of wearing the safety belt and explained that they would be eligible for prizes

every time the buckled-up on their own. Knowing this, 75-86% of the children began


buckling themselves on their own. Children knew that every time they wore their seat

belt when leaving day care, they would get a prize. This made them enjoy the behavior,

making it more likely they would perform the task. This continuation of receiving a

reward for wearing a safety belt will eventually lead the children to develop a habit of

wearing a seat belt every time they are in a vehicle.

Through investigation of ten different studies researching behavior modification

using positive reinforcement and/or shaping, it is safe to say that this method is quite

successful. Researchers were successfully able to control participants’ behaviors by

promising them a reward for performing the particular behavior. By doing so,

participants then learned a relationship between performing the desired behavior and

receiving a reward. Researchers thoroughly followed the requirements of presenting a

reward desirable to the participant, giving it systematically—contingent on the desired

behavior, presenting the reward immediately after the behavior, and promoting

generalization. With these steps, the participant finds the behavior desirable because of

the result of gaining rewards. Knowing these procedures, people can enforce socially

acceptable behaviors in an enjoyable manner.


References

Agras, W.S. (1972). Behavior modification: Principles and clinical applications.

Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Bijou, S. & Ribes-Inesta, E. (1972). Behavior modification: Issues and extensions. New

York: Academic Press.

Hamerlynck, L. A., Handy, L. C., & Mash, E. J. (1973). Behavior change: Methodology

concepts and practice. Champaign: Research Press.

Kazdin, A E. (1989). Behavior modification in applied settings. Pacific Grove:

Brooks/Cole.

Luiselli, J.K. (1997). Teaching toilet skills in a public school setting to a child with

pervasive developmental disorder. Journal of Behavior Therapy and

Experimental Psychiatry, 28, 163-168.

Martin, Garry and Pear, Joseph. (1983). Behavior Modification: What it is and how to do

it. Second Edition. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Nay,W. R. (1976). Behavioral intervention. New York: Gardner Press.

Saigh, P.A. (1980). The effects of positive group reinforcement on the behavior of

Lebanese school children. The Journal of Social Psychology, 110, 287-288.

Sherman, A. Robert. (1973). Behavior modification: Theory and practice. Belmont:

Wadsworth.

Without Miracles: The Adaptive Modifications of Behavior. Retrieved: Nov.11, 2005.

http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/g-cziko/wm/07.html.

running head: behavior modification …web.mnstate.edu/malonech/psy342/assignments/sample...

Documents