ERIC EJ767628: Antecedent Effects of Observing Peer Play

2007·0.13 MB·English

by  ERIC

JOURNALOFAPPLIEDBEHAVIORANALYSIS 2007, 40, 327–331 NUMBER2 (SUMMER2007)
ANTECEDENT EFFECTS OF OBSERVING PEER PLAY
JENNIFER L. BRUZEK AND RACHEL H. THOMPSON
UNIVERSITYOFKANSAS
Therelativereinforcingvalueoftoyswasassessedintheabsenceof,andimmediatelyfollowing,
participantobservationofapeermanipulatingoneofthetoys.Preferenceassessmentswereused
toidentifypreferencehierarchies.Reinforcerassessmentswereconductedwithahigh-preference
item, a low-preference item, and a control. Each participant allocated responding toward the
high-preference item during baseline. When reinforcer assessment sessions were preceded by
apeerobservationperiod,3ofthe4participantsshiftedallocationtothetoymanipulatedbythe
peer.The4thparticipantshiftedallocationonlywhenthehigh-preferencestimuluswasreplaced
with a medium-preference stimulus. These data suggest that, among preschoolers, response
allocation isinfluenced byobservations ofpeers playing.
DESCRIPTORS: motivating operations,imitation, peermodeling, reinforcer assessment
_______________________________________________________________________________
Effective early education environments strive tion, illustrating one example of the influence
to minimize inappropriate behavior and pro- of motivating operations (Laraway, Snycerski,
mote maximum participation in beneficial Michael, & Poling, 2003) on preschoolers’
classroom activities. Thus, an understanding behavior. Another potentially influential ante-
of those variables that influence preschoolers’ cedent variable in early education settings is
response allocation among activities is necessary peer behavior. For example, children often
foreffectivepractice.Severalstudieshaveshown compete for the same toy even when duplicates
that preschoolers’ response allocation is a func- of the toy are readily available—children want
tion of consequences associated with available whattheirpeershave(Caplan,Vespo,Pederson,
response options. Cuvo, Lerch, Leurquin, & Hay, 1991). Thus, the relative value of
Gaffaney, and Poppen (1998) found that classroom materials may be altered when
children allocated relatively more responding children observe their peers manipulating those
to a task associated with a denser schedule of materials. We explored this possibility by
reinforcement, even when that task was more conducting reinforcer assessment sessions in
challenging than an alternative. In addition, the absence of, and immediately following,
differential reinforcement schedules have been a peer observation during which the peer
used to increase preschoolers’ selection of manipulated one of the available items.
initially nonpreferred (Betancourt & Zeiler,
1971) or novel (Cammilleri & Hanley, 2005)
METHOD
classroom activities.
Participants and Setting
Relatively little research has been devoted to
Four children participated in the study. All
identifyingthe influence of antecedent variables
children were typically developing and attended
on preschoolers’ response allocation. McAdam
a full-day early education program. Each
et al. (2005) demonstrated that preschoolers’
participant also served as a peer for another
selections during a preference assessment were
participant.Dyads(theparticipantandhisorher
influenced by presession deprivation or satia-
peer)werechosenbasedonteacherand/orparent
Address correspondence to Rachel Thompson, De- report that the children frequently played
partment of Applied Behavioral Science, 1000 Sunnyside together.Amy(2 years2 monthsold)andKerry
Ave.,Room4001,UniversityofKansas,Lawrence,Kansas
(3 years 8 months old) were siblings and were
66045(e-mail: [email protected]).
doi:10.1901/jaba.2007.102-06 assignedtoadyad,andAdam(2 years5 months
327
328 JENNIFER L. BRUZEK and RACHEL H. THOMPSON
old)andLarry(2 years8 monthsold)wereclass- Procedure
mates who were assigned to a dyad. All sessions Preference assessment. A paired-choice prefer-
were conducted in a room equipped with an ence assessment (Fisher et al., 1992) was
adjoining observation area. Reinforcer assess- conducted to identify high-preference (HP),
ment sessions were 5 min in length (excluding low-preference (LP), and medium-preference
reinforcer consumption time for Larry and (MP) stimuli for inclusion in the reinforcer
Kerry) and were conducted once per day. assessment. Items were included based on
parent and teacher reports of participants’
Data Collection and Interobserver Agreement
preferences. During the preference assessment,
Trainedundergraduateandgraduatestudents
each item was presented in a pair with every
served as experimenters and data collectors.
other item until all possible pairs had been
Observers recorded selections during the pref-
presented once. For each trial, the selected item
erence assessments using paper and pencil. A
was delivered for 30 s.
selectionwasrecordediftheparticipanttouched
Reinforcer assessment. Reinforcer assessments
an item within 5 s of the instruction, ‘‘pick
were conducted to determine the relative
one.’’ For each item, the number of selections
reinforcing effects of stimuli identified in the
wasdividedbythenumberofpresentationsand
preference assessment. For Amy and Adam,
multiplied by 100% to determine the percent-
stimuli were delivered contingent on in-zone
age chosen. A second independent observer
behavior(Fisheretal.,1992).Thesessionroom
simultaneously scored 100% of trials. Agree-
was divided into three zones (1.2 m by 1.5 m)
ment was defined as both observers recording
marked on the floor with tape. One zone
the same response for a trial. Percentage
contained the HP stimulus, one contained the
agreement was calculated by dividing the
LP stimulus, and one zone was empty (i.e.,
number of agreements plus disagreements and
control). Each session began with the partici-
multiplying by 100%; mean agreement was
pant and experimenter standing outside the
100% for all participants.
threezones,andtheexperimenterpromptedthe
During the reinforcer assessment, the dura-
child to ‘‘pick one.’’ In-zone behavior resulted
tion of in-zone behavior (i.e., the majority of
in continuous access to the corresponding
the body inside a zone) was recorded and then
stimuli and continuous experimenter attention
divided by the total session length to determine
(i.e., the experimenter entered the zone and
the percentage of time in zone. The frequency
played with the child), or no programmed
of card placement (releasing a card into
consequences (i.e., control). Stimuli were ran-
a container) was recorded and then divided by
domly assigned to zones prior to each session,
the session length to determine number of
responses per minute. Interobserver agreement and sessions were conducted until the relative
was assessed during a mean of 37% of sessions valueoftheHPandLPstimuliwasdetermined.
(range, 26% to 43% across participants). For Larry and Kerry, the reinforcer assess-
Agreement percentages were calculated by ment was modified to increase the response
comparing observers’ records on an interval- requirement. The session room was arranged as
by-interval basis. The smaller duration (or described above, but each zone contained
number) of responses in each interval was a different-colored set of task materials. Each
divided by the larger number; these fractions setconsistedoffiveindexcardsandarectangular
were then averaged across intervals and multi- container that were placed on the floor directly
plied by 100% to obtain a percentage agree- in front of the corresponding stimulus. Con-
ment score. The mean agreement across tingentonplacingallfivecardsinthecontainer,
participants was 95% (range, 88% to 100%). the child gained 30-s access to the HP or LP
ANTECEDENT EFFECTS 329
stimulus and experimenter attention or no RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
programmed consequences (control). The posi-
For Amy, the HP stimulus was people
tion of the HP and LP stimuli and their
and houses (chosen on 89% of trials) and
corresponding materials was randomly as-
the LP stimulus was dinosaurs (chosen on
signed before each session. At the beginning
22% of trials). For Adam, the HP stimulus was
of each session the experimenter delivered
food and dishes (chosen on 89% of trials) and
the instruction to ‘‘pick one,’’ and this in-
the LP stimulus was dinosaurs (chosen on 11%
struction was reissued after each reinforcer
of trials). For Larry, the HP stimulus was cars
access period.
andcarwash(chosen on100%oftrials)andthe
LP stimulus was stacking cups (never chosen).
Experimental Conditions
For Kerry, the HP stimulus was markers and
Baseline. Baseline reinforcer assessment ses-
paper (chosen on 100% of trials), the LP
sions were conducted as described above.
stimulus was Mr. Potato HeadH (chosen on
Observation of peer play. Reinforcer assess-
11% of trials), and an MP stimulus (bus and
ment sessions occurred immediately after a pe-
people; chosen on 56% of trials) was included
riod during which the participant observed
as well.
a peer engaging with one of the stimuli (i.e.,
Figure 1 depicts the reinforcer assessment
HP, LP, MP) available during the subsequent
results for all participants. Control selections
reinforcer assessment session. Prior to the
were rare and were omitted from the graphs for
observation period, an experimenter instructed
easeofvisualinspection.Theresultswerehighly
the peer to play with one of two available
consistent for Amy, Adam, and Larry. During
stimuli (the peer always complied). The peer
baseline, responding was consistently allocated
and experimenter then entered the room and
to the HP stimuli relative to the LP stimuli and
thepeerinteractedwiththedesignatedstimulus
control. During sessions following observation
for 2 min. The peer was never asked to
of a peer, substantially more responding was
complete the clean-up task. During the peer
allocatedtothestimulimanipulatedbythepeer
observation period, the participant observed
during the observation.
through a one-way window with a second
experimenter who briefly responded to any of The effects of peer observation were less
his or her questions or comments. The second robust for Kerry. During baseline, Kerry
experimenter also made neutral statements allocated substantially more responding to the
about the toys (e.g., ‘‘They’re racing the cars.’’) HP stimulus. She continued to allocate re-
every30stodirecttheparticipant’sattentionto spondingtotheHPstimulusafterobservingher
the peer’s actions. Following the 2-min peer peer interacting with the LP stimulus, suggest-
observation period, the peer was escorted back ing that peer observation was not powerful
to class and the participant was exposed to the enoughtooverrideherstrongpreferenceforthe
reinforcer assessment procedures described HP stimulus. The HP stimulus was then
above. replaced with an MP stimulus, and Kerry
allocated responding primarily to the MP
Experimental Design stimulus. In subsequent sessions that followed
A concurrent operants arrangement was used peer observation, Kerry allocated responding
to determine the relative reinforcing value of primarily to the stimulus manipulated by the
stimuli presented during the reinforcer assess- peer. Peer observations were insufficient to
ment. The effects of peer observation on override Kerry’s preference for the HP stimulus
response allocation during the reinforcer assess- overtheLPstimulus.Peerobservationsdidalter
ment were evaluated in a reversal design. the relative reinforcing value of the MP and LP
330 JENNIFER L. BRUZEK and RACHEL H. THOMPSON
Figure 1. The percentage of time in zone during the reinforcer assessments is shown for Amy and Adam (left).
Responses per minute during the reinforcer assessments are depicted for Larry and Kerry (right). Brackets indicate
reinforcerassessmentsconductedafterobservationofpeerplay.Phasedescriptorswithinthebracketsindicatetheitem
(HP,LP,or MP)manipulated bythepeer.
stimuli, but results were less consistent than engaged. Thus, it appears that peer observation
those obtained with the other participants. served as a motivating operation, altering the
These results add to a substantial literature value of toys presented during the reinforcer
that has examined the effects of peers on the assessment.
behavior of young children by suggesting an However, a plausible alternative interpreta-
additional conceptual framework for under- tion is that the opportunity to imitate a peer
standing peer influences. In most prior studies, was itself a reinforcer that resulted in shifts in
peer behavior served as a discriminative stimu- response allocation. To rule out this alternative
lus that occasioned imitation (e.g., Nikopolous account, one would need to provide access to
& Keenan, 2004; Werts, Caldwell, & Wolery, the toy manipulated by the peer but prevent
1996). In the current study, children did not imitation of the peer’s actions. Another poten-
merely imitate their peers; they worked to gain tiallimitationisthatourstudydoesnotprovide
access to stimuli with which their peers had information regarding the characteristics of the
ANTECEDENT EFFECTS 331
peer pair necessary for peer observation to Fisher, W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L.
P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison
influence response allocation. In addition, it is
of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for
possiblethatpreferencesshiftedasaresultofthe personswithsevereandprofounddisabilities.Journal
experimenter’s statements, which were designed of AppliedBehaviorAnalysis,25,491–498.
todirecttheparticipant’sattentiontothepeer’s Laraway, S., Snycerski, S., Michael, J., & Poling, A.
(2003). Motivating operations and terms to describe
actions.
them: Some further refinements. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis,36,407–414.
McAdam,D.B.,Klatt,K.P.,Koffarnus,M.,Dicesare,A.,
REFERENCES
Solberg, K., Welch, C., et al. (2005). The effects of
Betancourt, F. W., & Zeiler, M. D. (1971). The choices establishing operations on preferences for tangible
andpreferencesofnurseryschoolchildren.Journalof items. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38,
AppliedBehavior Analysis, 4, 299–304. 107–110.
Cammilleri, A. P., & Hanley, G.P. (2005). Use of a lag Nikopoulos,C.K.,&Keenan,M.(2004).Effectsofvideo
differential reinforcement contingency to increase modeling on social initiations by children with
varied selections of classroom activities. Journal of autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37,
AppliedBehavior Analysis, 38,111–115. 93–96.
Caplan,M.,Vespo,J.,Pederson,J.,&Hay,D.F.(1991). Werts, M. G., Caldwell, N. K., & Wolery, M. (1996).
Conflictanditsresolutioninsmallgroupsofone-and Peer modeling of response chains: Observational
two-year-olds.Child Development,62,1513–1524. learning by students with disabilities. Journal of
Cuvo,A.J.,Lerch,L.J.,Leurquin,D.A.,Gaffaney,T.J., Applied BehaviorAnalysis,29, 53–66.
& Poppen, R. L. (1998). Response allocation to
concurrent fixed-ratio reinforcement schedules with
workrequirements byadultswithmentalretardation Received June 28,2006
and typical preschool children. Journal of Applied Final acceptanceNovember 8, 2006
BehaviorAnalysis,31, 43–63. Action Editor,Linda LeBlanc