No description available.

The purpose of the present study was to compare their (avoidance contingency and positive-reinforcement contingency) relative effectiveness in producing a desired behavior.

The purpose of this study was to develop an effective method for trailer loading horses based on the principles of positive reinforcement. Target training and shaping were used to teach trailer loading behavior in a natural setting. Five AQHA mares were selected for this program. All five had been loaded before through the use of punishment. A two-horse trailer was used. Approximations to loading and inappropriate behaviors were the dependent variables. When intervention started the target was moved to various locations inside the trailer. Subjects started training on the left side of the trailer. After a subject was loading in the left side they were moved to the right side, then to loading half on the right and half on the left, then they were loaded by a different trainer, and into a different trailer. For one subject a limited hold was utilized, as well as a companion horse.

Most horse training methods heavily rely on negative reinforcement and punishment. However, there is a movement in the horse community to utilize positive reinforcement to meet training goals. Although food has been used effective as a reinforcer with horses, social interaction has also been demonstrated to function as a positive reinforcer for animals. Utilizing social interaction as a reinforcer may lead to several benefits for both the trainer and animal. Some of the benefits can be improved relationships between animals and their caretakers and improved animal welfare. The purpose of this study was to apply Owens and Owens et al. previous research protocols to three equines to assess if social interaction, in the form of petting and gentle scratching, would function as a reinforcer. Using a changing criterion design, this study demonstrated that petting and gentle scratching could function as a reinforcer to teach three equines to stay and come in their natural environment.

On multiline slot machine games, small “wins” often amount to less than the spin wager, resulting in a monetary loss to the gambler. Nevertheless, these monetary losses are still accompanied by “winning” (and potentially reinforcing) audio-visual feedback. Dixon, Harrigan, Sandhu, Collins, and Fugelsang (2010) termed these potentially reinforcing losses as losses disguised as wins, or LDWs. Dixon et al. previously showed that novice gamblers appear to somatically miscategorize LDWs as wins rather than correctly categorizing these outcomes as losses. Two studies are presented which investigated whether novice gamblers would psychologically miscategorize LDWs as wins as well. In both studies, we investigated participants’ categorizations of LDWs using two measures. First, we asked participants to recall how many times they had won during a playing session and predicted that if participants miscategorize LDWs as wins, then they should conflate LDWs and wins in memory. In Study 1, participants played 200 spins on a real slot machine game with either relatively fewer or relatively many expected LDWs. We found that participants who experienced more LDWs during the playing session recalled winning significantly more often than participants who experienced fewer LDWs, despite how many actual wins the participant experienced, or how much they won or lost overall. In Study 2, we found that participants recalled winning significantly more often in simulator games with more rather than fewer LDWs, despite identical numbers of real wins and identical payback percentages in both games. We referred to this type of memory error as the LDW overestimation effect. The second measure we used to investigate participants’ categorizations of LDWs was more immediate and direct. We evaluated whether participants would miscategorize LDWs as wins or correctly categorize these outcomes as losses by simply asking them to verbally label slot machine spin outcomes. In both studies, we found that the majority of participants miscategorized LDWs as wins rather than correctly categorizing the outcomes as losses. Implications for problem gambling are discussed.

On multiline slot machine games, small “wins” often amount to less than the spin wager, resulting in a monetary loss to the gambler. Nevertheless, these monetary losses are still accompanied by “winning” (and potentially reinforcing) audio-visual feedback. Dixon, Harrigan, Sandhu, Collins, and Fugelsang (2010) termed these potentially reinforcing losses as losses disguised as wins, or LDWs. Dixon et al. previously showed that novice gamblers appear to somatically miscategorize LDWs as wins rather than correctly categorizing these outcomes as losses. Two studies are presented which investigated whether novice gamblers would psychologically miscategorize LDWs as wins as well. In both studies, we investigated participants’ categorizations of LDWs using two measures. First, we asked participants to recall how many times they had won during a playing session and predicted that if participants miscategorize LDWs as wins, then they should conflate LDWs and wins in memory. In Study 1, participants played 200 spins on a real slot machine game with either relatively fewer or relatively many expected LDWs. We found that participants who experienced more LDWs during the playing session recalled winning significantly more often than participants who experienced fewer LDWs, despite how many actual wins the participant experienced, or how much they won or lost overall. In Study 2, we found that participants recalled winning significantly more often in simulator games with more rather than fewer LDWs, despite identical numbers of real wins and identical payback percentages in both games. We referred to this type of memory error as the LDW overestimation effect. The second measure we used to investigate participants’ categorizations of LDWs was more immediate and direct. We evaluated whether participants would miscategorize LDWs as wins or correctly categorize these outcomes as losses by simply asking them to verbally label slot machine spin outcomes. In both studies, we found that the majority of participants miscategorized LDWs as wins rather than correctly categorizing the outcomes as losses. Implications for problem gambling are discussed.

The Class Pass Intervention (CPI) is designed for students who engage in escape-motivated problem behavior to avoid or escape difficult or aversive academic work and who are not responsive to the system-wide universal supports provided to all students. Research on the CPI is in its initial stages and requires replications to be proven effective in multiple settings and become evidenced-based. Therefore, the purpose of the study was to expand the literature on CPI by targeting elementary school students and assess its impact on decreasing disruptive behavior maintained by attention and on increasing academic engagement. The study involved 4 students with disruptive classroom behavior and low academic engagement and their 2 classroom teachers. A multiple-baseline design across participants was used to demonstrate the intervention outcomes. The intervention was implemented during a targeted routine or academic time period when behavior was most likely to occur. Results indicated that teachers implemented the CPI with high levels of fidelity, and their implementation was effective in increasing academic engagement and decreasing disruptive behavior with all participants. The intervention effects were maintained after undergoing fading for all 4 students and during 2-week follow-up for 2 students. The results of social validity assessments indicated students and teachers found the intervention to be acceptable and effective. Limitations and implications for future research are discussed.

Off-task behavior is a major challenge. Various interventions have addressed this problem. Self-monitoring interventions are very effective, including the MotivAider, a self-timer that silently signals the student to observe his/her own Academic Engagement Time (AET). Studies of the MotivAider have reported increased AET., (Legge, DeBar, & Alber-Morgan, 2010; Morrison, McDougal, Black, & King-Sears, 2014) systematically faded the MotivAider to sustain increased AET. The present study replicated and extended this research using a response-dependent fading (Fox, Shores, Lindeman, & Strain, 1984) of the MotivAider to sustain the observe AET of a 6th grade student with Learning Disabilities. A single subject reversal desig analyzed the effects of the MotivAider and fading. Compared to baseline, the MotivAider increased AET while its temporary removal resulted in decreased AET. The singnal was gradually faded with maintained AET within intervention levels. Social validity data is also presented and implications for further research and educational practice discussed.

No description available.

No description available.