Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2012 Winter;45(4):721-35.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2012.45-721.

A comparison of two pairing procedures to establish praise as a reinforcer

Claudia L Dozier  1 , Brian A Iwata, Jessica Thomason-Sassi, April S Worsdell, David M Wilson
Affiliations
Comparative Study

A comparison of two pairing procedures to establish praise as a reinforcer

Claudia L Dozier et al. J Appl Behav Anal. 2012 Winter.

Abstract

Some individuals with intellectual disabilities do not respond to praise as a reinforcer, which may limit their ability to learn. We evaluated 2 procedures (stimulus pairing and response-stimulus pairing), both of which involved pairing previously neutral praise statements with preferred edible items, to determine their usefulness in establishing praise as a reinforcer. Results of Study 1 indicated that stimulus pairing was not effective in conditioning praise as a reinforcer for 3 of 4 subjects; results were inconclusive for the 4th subject. Results of Study 2 indicated that response-stimulus pairing was effective in conditioning praise as a reinforcer for 4 of 8 subjects. After conditioning, praise also increased the occurrence of additional target responses for these 4 subjects.

Keywords: conditioned reinforcement; praise; social reinforcement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Responses per minute of target responses across baseline, praise, and praise (test) conditions of the stimulus-pairing procedure (Study 1).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Responses per minute of target responses across baseline, praise, and food plus praise conditions of the response–stimulus pairing procedure for Alicia, Mike, Rick, and Riley (Study 2).
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Responses per minute of Target Response 1 across baseline, praise, and food plus praise conditions and Target Responses 2 and 3 across baseline and praise conditions of the response–stimulus pairing procedure for Larry, Chris, Eric, and Shari (Study 2).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Barton E. J. Developing sharing: An analysis of modeling and other behavioral techniques. Behavior Modification. (1981);5:386–398. doi:10.1177/014544558153007.
    1. Bijou S. W, Baer D. M. Child development: Vol. 1. A systematic and empirical theory. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts; (1961). doi:10.1037/11139-000.
    1. Bijou S. W, Baer D. M. Child development: II. Universal stage of infancy. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts; (1965).
    1. Brophy J. Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Educational Research. (1981);51:5–32. doi:10.3102/00346543051001005.
    1. Brown K. M, Willis B. S, Reid D. H. Differential effects of supervisor verbal feedback and feedback plus approval on institutional staff performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management. (1981);3:57–68. doi:10.1300/J075v03n01_05.

Publication types