Abstract
Pairing discriminative stimuli with unique reinforcers provides an additional cue to correct responding. In the current study, we evaluated the effectiveness of the differential outcomes procedure in teaching novel tacts and facilitating transfer of tacts to novel discriminative stimuli. Four children diagnosed with developmental or intellectual disability were taught a unique pair of related tacts both under a differential outcomes condition and under a nondifferential outcomes condition where the reinforcers were uncorrelated with the sample stimuli. In the former, the different outcomes were two forms of the same reinforcer. Three out of four participants met the mastery criterion sooner under the differential outcomes condition. Two participants also generalized to novel stimuli under the differential outcomes condition. When we tested for the inclusion of the reinforcers in the stimulus class, three participants demonstrated the acquisition of emergent stimulus–outcomes and response–outcomes relations. The study provides support for the use of the differential outcomes procedure as a cost-effective means of enhancing the acquisition of discriminated responses in an applied setting.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cariveau, T., La Cruz Montilla, A., Gonzalez, E., & Ball, S. (2019). A review of error correction procedures during instruction for children with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 52(2), 574–579. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.524.
Carmona, I., Marí-Beffa, P., & Estévez, A. F. (2019). Does the implicit outcomes expectancies shape learning and memory processes? Cognition, 189, 181–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.04.007.
Chong, I., & Carr, J. (2010). Failure to demonstrate the differential outcomes effect in children with autism. Behavioral Residential Treatment, 25, 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.318.
Ciccone, F., Graff, R., & Ahearn, W. H. (2005). An alternate scoring method for the multiple stimulus without replacement preference assessment. Behavioral Interventions, 20, 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.177.
DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1996.29-519.
Dube, W., McIlvane, W., Maguire, R., Mackay, H., & Stoddard, L. (1989). Stimulus class formation and stimulus-reinforcer relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1989.51-65.
Dube, W. V., McIlvane, W. J., Mackay, H. A., & Stoddard, L. T. (1987). Stimulus class membership established via stimulus–reinforcer relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 47, 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1987.47-159.
Estévez, A. F., & Fuentes, L. J. (2003). Differential outcomes effect in four-year-old children. Psicologica, 24, 159–167.
Estévez, A. F., Fuentes, L. J., Marí-Beffa, P., Gonzalez, C., & Alvarez, D. (2001). The differential outcome effect as a useful tool to improve conditional discrimination learning in children. Learning & Motivation, 32, 48–64. https://doi.org/10.1006/lmot.2000.1060.
Estévez, A. F., Fuentes, L. J., Overmier, J. B., & Gonzalez, C. (2003a). Differential outcomes effect in children and adults with Down syndrome. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 108, 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1352/0895-8017(2003)108%3C0108:DOEICA%3E2.0.CO;2.
Estévez, A. F., Overmier, J. B., & Fuentes, L. J. (2003b). Differential outcomes effect in children: Demonstration and mechanisms. Learning & Motivation, 34, 148–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0023-9690(02)00510-6.
Fisher, W., Pawich, T., Dickes, N., Paden, A., & Toussaint, K. (2014). Increasing the salience of behavior-consequence relations for children with autism who exhibit persistent errors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47, 738–748. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.172.
Fisher, W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L. P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(2), 491–498.
Fisher, W. F., Piazza, C. P., Bowman, L. G., & Amari, A. (1996). Integrating caregiver report with a systematic choice assessment to enhance reinforcer identification. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 101, 15–25.
Goeters, S., Blakely, E., & Poling, A. (1992). The differential outcomes effect. Psychological Record, 42, 389–409.
Hains, A. H., & Baer, D. M. (1989). Interaction effects in multielement designs: Inevitable, desirable, and ignorable. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1989.22-57.
Jones, B. M., & White, K. (1994). An investigation of the differential-outcomes effect within sessions. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 61, 389–406. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1994.61-389.
Joseph, B., Overmier, J. B., & Thompson, T. (1997). Food- and non-food-related differential outcomes in equivalence learning by adults with Prader-Willi syndrome. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 101(4), 374–386.
Kastak, C. R., Schusterman, R. J., & Kastak, D. (2001). Equivalence classification by California sea lions using class-specific reinforcers. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 76, 131–158. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2001.76-131.
Kyonka, E. G., & Subramaniam, S. (2018). Translating behavior analysis: A spectrum rather than a road map. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 41(2), 591–613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-018-0145-x.
Litt, M. D., & Schreibman, L. (1981). Stimulus-specific reinforcement in the acquisition of receptive labels. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 1, 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-4684(81)90030-6.
López-Crespo, G., Plaza, V., Fuentes, L., & Estévez, A. (2009). Improvement of age-related memory deficits by differential outcomes. International Psychogeriatrics, 21, 503–510. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610209008576.
Lozy, E. D., & Sy, J. R. (2019). Evaluating different values of effort and reinforcement parameters under concurrent-and single-operant arrangements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 52(2), 516–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.533.
Malanga, P., & Poling, A. (1992). Letter recognition by adults with mental handicaps: Improving performance through differential outcomes. Mental Retardation & Learning Disability Bulletin, 20, 39–48.
Martella, D., Plaza, V., Estévez, A., Castillo, A., & Fuentes, L. (2012). Minimizing sleep deprivation effects in healthy adults by differential outcomes. Acta Pscyhologica, 139, 391–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.12.013.
Matson, J. L., & Boisjoli, J. A. (2009). Token economy for children with autism: A review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 240–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2008.04.001.
McCormack, J. C., Arnold-Saritepe, A., & Elliffe, D. (2017). The differential outcomes effect in children with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 32(4), 357–369. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1489.
McCormack, J. C., Elliffe, D., & Virues-Ortega, J. (2019). Quantifying the effects of the differential outcomes procedure in humans: A systematic review and a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 52(3), 870–892. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.578.
McGhan, A. C., & Lerman, D. C. (2013). An assessment of error-correction procedures for learners with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46(3), 626–639. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.65.
McLay, L. K., Sutherland, D., Church, J., & Tyler-Merrick, G. (2013). The formation of equivalence classes in individuals with autism spectrum disorder: A review of the literature. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7(2), 418–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2012.11.002.
Miller, H., Friedrich, A., Narkavic, R., & Zentall, T. (2009). Differential-outcomes effect using hedonically nondifferential outcomes with delayed matching to sample by pigeons. Learning & Behavior, 37, 161–166. https://doi.org/10.3758/LB.37.2.161.
Miller, O. T., Waugh, K. M., & Chambers, K. (2002). Differential outcomes effect: Increased accuracy in adults learning kanji with stimulus specific rewards. The Psychological Record, 52(3), 315–324.
Minster, S. T., Jones, M., Elliffe, D., & Muthukumaraswamy, S. D. (2006). Stimulus equivalence: Testing Sidman’s (2000) theory. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 85, 371–391. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2006.15-05.
Mok, L. W., Estévez, A. F., & Overmier, J. B. (2010). Unique outcome expectations as a training and pedagogical tool. The Psychological Record, 60(2), 227–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395705.
Monteiro, P. C., & Barros, R. S. (2016). Emergence of auditory-visual relations via equivalence class formation in children diagnosed with autism. The Psychological Record, 66(4), 563–571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-016-0192-1.
Olive, M. L., & Smith, B. W. (2005). Effect size calculations and single subject designs. Educational Psychology, 25(2–3), 313–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341042000301238.
Peterson, G. B. (1984). How expectancies guide behavior. In H. L. Roitblat, T. G. Bever, & H. S. Terrace (Eds.), Animal cognition (pp. 135–148). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Plaza, V., López-Crespo, G., Antúnez, C., Fuentes, L. J., & Estévez, A. F. (2012). Improving delayed face recognition in Alzheimer's disease by differential outcomes. Neuropsychology, 26(4), 483. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028485.
Podlesnik, C. A., Kelley, M. E., Jimenez-Gomez, C., & Bouton, M. E. (2017). Renewed behavior produced by context change and its implications for treatment maintenance: A review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50, 675–697. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.400.
Rincover, A., & Koegel, R. (1973). Setting generality and stimulus control in autistic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1973(6), 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1975.8-235.
Sakagami, T., Hursh, S. R., Christensen, J., & Silberberg, A. (1989). Income maximizing in concurrent interval-ratio schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52(1), 41–46. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1989.52-41.
Savage, L. M., Buzzetti, R. A., & Ramirez, D. R. (2004). The effects of hippocampal lesions on learning, memory, and reward expectancies. Neurobiology of Learning & Memory, 82(2), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2004.05.002.
Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 127–149. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2000.74-127.
Sindelar, P. T., Rosenberg, M. S., & Wilson, R. J. (1985). An adapted alternating treatments design for instructional research. Education & Treatment of Children, 8, 67–76.
Sundberg, M. L. (2008). Verbal behavior milestones assessment and placement program: The VB-MAPP. Concord, CA: AVB Press.
Tiger, J. H., Toussaint, K. A., & Roath, C. T. (2010). An evaluation of the value of choice-making opportunities in single-operant arrangements: Simple fixed-and progressive-ratio schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(3), 519–524. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2010.43-519.
Trapold, M. (1970). Are expectancies based upon reinforcing events discriminably different? Learning & Motivation, 1, 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/0023-9690(70)90079-2.
Urcuioli, P. J. (1996). Acquired Equivalences and mediated generalization in pigeon’s matching-to-sample. Advances in Psychology, 17, 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(06)80103-2.
Urcuioli, P. J. (2005). Behavioral and associative effects of differential outcomes in discrimination learning. Learning & Behavior, 33, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196047.
Varella, A. A., & de Souza, D. G. (2014). Emergence of auditory–visual relations from a visual–visual baseline with auditory-specific consequences in individuals with autism. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 102(1), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.93.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
All procedures performed in studies were approved by the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee (Ref 014388 24/4/2015). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study or their parents/guardian. Assent was obtained from all participants.
Animals and Human Rights
This manuscript does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Availability of Data and Materials
The datasets generated during and analyzed during the current study are available from the University of Auckland repository at https://auckland.figshare.com/articles/dataset/Data_Enhanced_Tact_Acquisition/9831071
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McCormack, J.C., Elliffe, D. & Virues-Ortega, J. Enhanced Tact Acquisition Using the Differential Outcomes Procedure in Children with Developmental and Intellectual Disability. Psychol Rec 71, 55–70 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-020-00429-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-020-00429-8