![]() ![]() In a group-based Lag 2 schedule, with a group of two individuals, the individual must say a response that is different from the previous two responses (his or her own and the peer’s). For example, in a group-based Lag 1 schedule, the individual must say a response that is different from a peer’s during the previous turn. Depending on the size of the group and the lag criterion, this can include varying their response from their peers’ previous response(s) and their own. In contrast to individual-level lag schedules, group-based lag schedules require individuals to vary their response from x number of previous responses in the group. Wiskow and Donaldson ( 2016) extended research on lag schedules by evaluating the effects of Lag 0 (i.e., fixed ratio 1) and Lag 1 schedules of reinforcement applied to a group of young children on the levels of varied responses to naming category items. Children often learn academic skills in a group instructional format in school however, many of our evaluations of teaching procedures have occurred in an individual instructional format. Most of the research on response variability has been implemented at an individual level, but it may be especially important to understand the effects of lag schedules in a group context, like what naturally occurs in classrooms. Without variability, creativity is low (Neuringer, 2002). Creativity may be an important component of problem solving, well-being, and adult success (Plucker, Beghetto, & Dow, 2004). In addition, creativity assessments such as the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking include measures of divergent intraverbal responding (Torrance, 1990). ![]() An individual’s ability to participate in these games may provide access to social reinforcers. For example, “fruit” may evoke the responses “strawberry,” “banana,” “kiwi,” and “watermelon.” There is a variety of games that require categorical response variability, such as Family Feud, Scattergories, and Hive Mind. Divergent intraverbal responding consists of one stimulus that occasions multiple possible responses. Naming category items requires divergent intraverbal responding. Experimenters have also used lag schedules to increase varied and novel responses in academic skills, such as naming category items (e.g., Wiskow, Matter, & Donaldson, 2018). Experimenters have used lag schedules to increase the variability of socially meaningful behaviors, such as conversation topics (Lepper, Devine, & Petursdottir, 2017), answering social questions (e.g., Lee, McComas, & Jawor, 2002 Susa & Schlinger, 2012), mands (e.g., Silbaugh & Falcomata, 2019), and food consumption (Silbaugh & Falcomata, 2017). Similarly, someone may ask, “What do you like to do for fun?” the person responds, “I like to play soccer,” and the first person responds, “I do not play soccer what else do you like to do?” The second person will then need to state another conversation topic. If someone asks, “What do you want to drink?” and the person replies, “Lemonade,” the first person might respond, “I do not have lemonade what else do you want?” The second person will then need to ask for a different drink. ![]() There are many situations in daily life that might require a person to vary his or her response to access reinforcement. For example, in a Lag 1 schedule, a response is reinforced only if it varies from the previous response. ![]() In a lag schedule, a response is reinforced if it is different from x number of previous responses (Neuringer, 2002). One method to increase response variability is the use of lag schedules of reinforcement. Learning to vary responses may provide individuals with multiple ways to access reinforcers in their environment and assist with creativity and problem-solving skills. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |