Abstract
Equivalence-based instruction (EBI) involves the teaching of socially relevant material (e.g., academic material) with stimulus equivalence procedures. In the research literature, training and testing of equivalence classes has been almost exclusively conducted on an individual basis. To extend the literature, the present study compared the effects of using EBI with an interdependent group contingency, individualized EBI (no group contingency), and a PowerPoint lecture on class formation with college students. The four equivalence classes taught consisted of information related to positive and negative reinforcement and punishment procedures. The members of each class were the name, definition, an example of the contingency, and the corresponding contingency table diagram. For the two EBI groups, a cloud-based student response system (SRS) application involving personal cell phones was used. To compare the effects of the different teaching protocols, three pretests and posttests were administered: (1) written fill-in, (2) written multiple-choice, and (3) card sorting. Results showed increased class-consistent responding across all three groups following training. However, written multiple-choice tests performances for the two EBI groups were significantly higher than for the lecture group, and the group-contingency EBI was significantly more effective for the fill-in written test than was lecture. Results also maintained at a 1-week follow-up. These results suggest that EBI can be effectively and efficiently implemented in more naturalistic settings, such as a classroom, while using free web-based technology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
About Quizizz. (2019). https://quizizz.com/about
Albright, L., Reeve, K. F., Reeve, S. A., & Kisamore, A. N. (2015). Teaching statistical variability with equivalence-based instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48(4), 883–894. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.249
Albright, L., Schnell, L., Reeve, K. F., & Sidener, T. M. (2016). Using stimulus equivalence-based instruction to teach graduate students in applied behavior analysis to interpret operant functions of behavior. Journal of Behavior & Education, 25, 290–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-016-9249-0
Arntzen, E., Granmo, S., & Fields, L. (2017). The relation between sorting tests and matching-to-sample tests in the formation of equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 67(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-016-0209-9
Arntzen, E., Grondahl, T., & Eilifsen, C. (2010). The effects of different training structures in the establishment of conditional discriminations and subsequent performance on tests for stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 60, 437–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395720
Arntzen, E., Norbom, A., & Fields, L. (2015). Sorting: An alternative measure of class formation? The Psychological Record, 65, 615–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-015-0132-5
Augland, H., Lian, T., & Arntzen, E. (2020). Comparing a student active learning format to equivalence-based instruction. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 21(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2020.1752513
Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2017). BCBA/BCaBA task list (5th ed.). https://www.bacb.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/BCBA-task-list-5th-ed-200818.pdf. Accessed 13 Nov 2017.
Blair, B. J., & Shawler, L. A. (2020). Developing and implementing emergent responding training systems with available and low-cost computer-based learning tools: Some best practices and a tutorial. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 13, 509–520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-019-00405-x
Blair, B. J., Tarbox, J., Albright, L., MacDonald, J. M., Shawler, L. A., Russo, S. R., & Dorsey, M. F. (2019). Using equivalence-based instruction to teach the visual analysis of graphs. Behavioral Interventions, 34(3), 405–418. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1669
Bolanos, J. E., Reeve, K. F., Reeve, S. A., Sidener, T. M., Jennings, A. M., & Ostrosky, B. D. (2020). Using stimulus equivalence-based instruction to teach young children to sort recycling, trash, and compost items. Behavior & Social Issues, 29, 78–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-020-00028-w
Bortoloti, R., Rodrigues, N. C., Cortez, M. D., Pimentel, N., & de Rose, J. C. (2013). Overtraining increases the strength of equivalence relations. Psychology & Neuroscience, 6(3), 357–364. https://doi.org/10.3922/j.psns.2013.3.13
Brodsky, J., & Fienup, D. M. (2018). Sidman goes to college: A meta-analysis of equivalence-based instruction in higher education. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 41(1), 95–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-018-0150-0
Cariveau, T., Montilla, A. L. C., Ball, S., & Gonzalez, E. (2019). A preliminary analysis of equivalence-based instruction to train instructors to implement discrete trial teaching. Journal of Behavioral Education, 29, 787–805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-019-09348-3
Connell, J. E., & Witt, J. C. (2004). Applications of computer-based instruction: Using specialized software to aid letter-name and letter-sound recognition. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37(1), 67–71. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2004.37-67
Cowley, B. J., Green, G., & Braunling-McMorrow, D. (1992). Using stimulus equivalence procedures to teach name-face matching to adults with brain injuries. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(2), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1992.25-461
Critchfield, T. S. (2018). Efficiency is everything: Promoting efficient practice by harnessing derived stimulus relations. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 11(3), 206–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-018-0262-8
Critchfield, T. S., & Fienup, D. M. (2010). Using stimulus equivalence technology to teach statistical inference in a group setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(4), 763–768. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2010.43-763
de Rose, J. C., de Souza, D. G., & Hanna, E. S. (1996). Teaching reading and spelling: Exclusion and stimulus equivalence. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(4), 451–469. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1996.29-451
Dixon, M. R., Belisle, J., Stanley, C. R., Daar, J. H., & Williams, L. A. (2016). Derived equivalence relations of geometry skills in students with autism: An application of the PEAK-E curriculum. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 32(1), 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-016-0051-9
Elias, N. C., Goyos, C., Saunders, M., & Saunders, R. (2008). Teaching manual signs to adults with mental retardation using matching-to-sample procedures and stimulus equivalence. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 24(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393053
Ferman, D. M., Reeve, K. F., Vladescu, J .C., Albright, L. K., Jennings, A. M., & Domanski, C. (2020). Comparing stimulus equivalence-based instruction to a video lecture to increase religious literacy in middle-school children. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 13, 360–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-019-00355-4
Fields, L. F., Arntzen, E., & Moksness, M. (2014). Stimulus sorting: A quick and sensitive index of equivalence class formation. The Psychological Record, 64, 487–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0034-y
Fields, L. F., Arntzen, E., Nartey, R. K., & Eilifsen, C. (2012). Effects of a meaningful, a discriminative, and a meaningless stimulus on equivalence class formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 97(2), 163–181. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2012.97-163
Fields, L., Travis, R., Roy, D., Yadlovker, E., Aguiar-Rocha, L., & Sturmey, P. (2009). Equivalence class formation: A method for teaching statistical interactions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(3), 575–593. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-575
Fienup, D. M., Covey, D. P., & Critchfield, T. S. (2010). Teaching brain-behavior relations economically with stimulus equivalence technology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(1), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2010.43-19
Fienup, D. M., & Critchfield, T. S. (2010). Efficiently establishing concepts of inferential statistics and hypothesis decision making through contextually controlled equivalence classes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(3), 437–462. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2010.43-437
Fienup, D. M., & Critchfield, T. S. (2011). Transportability of equivalence-based programmed instruction: Efficacy and efficiency in a college classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(3), 435–450. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-435
Fienup, D. M., Mylan, S. E., Brodsky, J., & Pytte, C. (2016). From the laboratory to the classroom: The effects of equivalence-based instruction on neuroanatomy competencies. Journal of Behavioral Education, 25, 143–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-015-9241-0
Gallant, E. E., Reeve, K. F., Reeve, S. A., Vladescu, J. C., & Kisamore, A. N. (2021). Comparing two equivalence-based instruction protocols and self-study for teaching logical fallacies to college students. Behavioral Interventions, 36, 434–456. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1772
Green, G., & Saunders, R. R. (1998). Stimulus equivalence. In K. A. Lattal & M. Perone (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in human operant behavior (pp. 229–262). Springer.
Haegele, K. M., McComas, J. J., Dixon, M., & Burns, M. K. (2011). Using a stimulus equivalence paradigm to teach numerals, English words, and Native American words to preschool-age children. Journal of Behavioral Education, 20, 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-011-9134-9
Hausman, N. L., Borrero, J. C., Fisher, A., & Kahng, S. (2014). Improving accuracy of portion-size estimations through a stimulus equivalence paradigm. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.139
Henrique, M., & Henklain, O. (2013). Stimulus equivalence and increase of correct responses in addition and subtraction problems. Paidéia, 23(56), 349–358. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-43272356201309
Joyce, B. G., & Wolking, W. D. (1989). Stimulus equivalence: An approach for teaching beginning reading skills to young children. Education & Treatment of Children, 12(2), 109–122.
Keintz, K. S., Miguel, C. F., Kao, B., & Finn, H. E. (2011). Using conditional discrimination training to produce emergent relations between coins and their values in children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(4), 909–913. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-909
Klotz, F. (2018). Faculty views on the teaching tools of tomorrow: How digital textbooks and tech innovation impact professors’ work. Chronicle of Higher Education. http://images.results.chronicle.com/Web/TheChronicleofHigherEducation/%7Bc9f53bdd-d295-4d7b-b8a27b3a2003f4d6%7D_FacultViewsonTeaching_ResearchBrief_Pearson_v8.pdf
Langthorne, P., & McGill, P. (2009). A tutorial on the concept of the motivating operation and its importance to application. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 2(2), 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391745
Leblanc, L. A., Miguel, C. F., Cummings, A. R., Goldsmith, T. R., & Carr, J. E. (2003). The effects of three stimulus-equivalence testing conditions on emergent US geography relations of children diagnosed with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 18(4), 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.144
Lovett, S., Rehfeldt, R. A., Garcia, Y., & Dunning, J. (2011). Comparison of a stimulus equivalence protocol and traditional lecture for teaching single-subject designs. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(4), 819–833. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-819
LaFond, T. R., Reeve, K. F., Day-Watkins, J., Reeve, S. A., Vladescu, J. C., & Jennings, A. M. (2020). Using stimulus equivalence-based instruction to teach young children their caregivers’ contact information. Behavioral Interventions. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1742
Lynch, D. C., & Cuvo, A. J. (1995). Stimulus equivalence instruction of fraction-decimal relations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28(2), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1995.28-115
Mackay, H. A. (1985). Stimulus equivalence in rudimentary reading and spelling. Analysis & Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 5(4), 373–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-4684(85)90006-0
McConnell, J. V. (1990). Negative reinforcement and positive punishment. In R. A. Griggs (Ed.), Handbook for teaching introductory psychology, With an emphasis on assessment (Vol. 3, pp. 214–216). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Michael, J. (1993). Establishing operations. The. Behavior Analyst, 16(2), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392623
Morgan, P. L. (2006). Increasing task engagement using preference or choice-making: Some behavioral and methodological factors affecting their efficacy as classroom interventions. Remedial & Special Education, 27(3), 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325060270030601
Myers, D. G., & DeWall, C. N. (2018). Psychology ((12th ed.). ed.).
O’Neill, J., Rehfeldt, R. A., Ninness, C., Munoz, B. E., & Mellor, J. (2015). Learning Skinner’s verbal operants: Comparing an online stimulus equivalence procedure to an assigned reading. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 31(2), 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-015-0035-1
Ong, T., Normand, M. P., & Schenk, M. J. (2018). Using equivalence-based instruction to teach college student to identify logical fallacies. Behavioral Interventions, 33(2), 122–135. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1512
Perez-Gonzalez, L. A., Herszlikowicz, K., & Williams, G. (2008). Stimulus relations analysis and the emergence of novel intraverbals. The Psychological Record, 58, 95–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395605
Pigott, H. E., & Heggie, D. L. (1985). Interpreting the conflicting results of individual versus group contingencies in classrooms: The targeted behavior as a mediating variable. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 7(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1300/J019v07n04_01
Pokorski, E. A., Barton, E. E., & Ledford, J. R. (2017). A review of the use of group contingencies in preschool settings. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 36(4), 230–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121416649935
Pytte, C. L., & Fienup, D. M. (2012). Using equivalence-based instruction to increase efficiency in teaching neuroanatomy. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 10(2), A125–A131.
Ramirez, J., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2009). Observational learning and the emergence of symmetry relations in teaching Spanish vocabulary words to typically developing children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(4), 801–805. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-801
Rehfeldt, R. A., Latimore, D., & Stromer, R. (2003). Observational learning and the formation of classes of reading skills by individuals with autism and other developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 24(5), 333–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0891-4222(03)00059-3
Reyes-Giordano, K., & Fienup, D. M. (2015). Emergence of topographical responding following equivalence-based neuroanatomy instruction. The Psychological Record, 65, 495–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-015-0125-4
Sheldon, J. P. (2002). Operant conditioning concepts in introductory psychology textbooks and their companion web sites. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 281–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP2904_04
Shields, C., & Gredler, M. (2003). A problem-solving approach to teaching operant conditioning. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 114–116. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP300_06
Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equivalences. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 14(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.1401.05
Sidman, M., & Cresson, O. (1973). Reading and crossmodal transfer of stimulus equivalences in severe retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 77(5), 515–523.
Sidman, M., & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: An expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1982.37-5
Skinner, C. H., Skinner, C. F., Skinner, A. L., & Cashwell, T. H. (1999). Using interdependent contingencies with groups of students: Why the principal kissed a pig. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 806–820. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131619921968833
Toussaint, K. A., & Tiger, J. H. (2010). Teaching early braille literacy skills within a stimulus equivalence paradigm to children with degenerative visual impairments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(2), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2010.43-181
Travis, R. W., Fields, L., & Arntzen, E. (2014). Discriminative functions and over-training as class-enhancing determinants of meaningful stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 102(1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.91
Trucil, L. M., Vladescu, J. C., Reeve, K. F., DeBar, R. M., & Schnell, L. K. (2015). Improving portion-size estimation using equivalence-based instruction. The Psychological Record, 65, 761–770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-015-0146-z
Varelas, A., & Fields, L. (2017). Equivalence based instruction by group based clicker training and sorting tests. The Psychological Record, 67, 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-016-0208-x
Walker, B. D., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2012). An evaluation of the stimulus equivalence paradigm to teach single-subject design to distance education students via Blackboard. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45(2), 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2012.45-329
Availability of Data and Material
Data are available from the second author upon reasonable request.
Funding
No funding sources were used for the research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests
All authors assert that they have no conflicts of interest or competing interests related to the research.
Ethics Approval
All procedures used in the study were approved by the institutional review board for human research participation at Caldwell University.
Consent to Participate
Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to the study.
Consent for Publication
All authors consent to submission of this paper for publication and agree with the order of authors.
Code Availability
The software used for the research is commercially available.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This study was conducted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the first author’s Doctor of Philosophy degree in applied behavior analysis from Caldwell University under the supervision of the second author.
Appendices
Appendix A
Sample Questions from Fill-In Written Test
Appendix B
Sample Questions from Written Multiple-Choice Test
Circle the letter that best answers the question or completes the statement.
-
1.
What is the definition of positive reinforcement?
-
a.
A behavior is followed by the immediate presentation of a stimulus, and the behavior occurs more often in the future under similar conditions as a result.
-
b.
A behavior is followed by the immediate removal of a stimulus, and the behavior occurs more often in the future under similar conditions as a result.
-
c.
A behavior is followed by the immediate presentation of a stimulus, and the behavior occurs less often in the future under similar conditions as a result.
-
d.
A behavior is followed by the immediate removal of a stimulus, and the behavior occurs less often in the future under similar conditions as a result.
-
2.
What is the definition of positive punishment?
-
a.
A behavior is followed by the immediate presentation of a stimulus, and the behavior occurs more often in the future under similar conditions as a result.
-
b.
A behavior is followed by the immediate removal of a stimulus, and the behavior occurs more often in the future under similar conditions as a result.
-
c.
A behavior is followed by the immediate presentation of a stimulus, and the behavior occurs less often in the future under similar conditions as a result.
-
d.
A behavior is followed by the immediate removal of a stimulus, and the behavior occurs less often in the future under similar conditions as a result.
-
3.
Which contingency table represents positive reinforcement?
Appendix C
Notation of Multiple-Choice Written Test Questions
Class | Relation Type | Relation | Sample | Correct Choice | Incorrect Choices | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Baseline | AB | A1 | B1 | B2 | B3 | B4 |
AC | A1 | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | ||
AD | A1 | D1 | D2 | D3 | D4 | ||
Symmetry | BA | B1 | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | |
CA | C1 | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | ||
DA | D1 | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | ||
Equivalence | BC | B1 | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | |
CB | C1 | B1 | B2 | B3 | B4 | ||
CD | C1 | D1 | D2 | D3 | D4 | ||
DC | D1 | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | ||
BD | B1 | D1 | D2 | D3 | D4 | ||
DB | D1 | B1 | B2 | B3 | B4 | ||
2 | Baseline | AB | A2 | B2 | B1 | B3 | B4 |
AC | A2 | C2 | C1 | C3 | C4 | ||
AD | A2 | D2 | D1 | D3 | D4 | ||
Symmetry | BA | B2 | A2 | A1 | A3 | A4 | |
CA | C2 | A2 | A1 | A3 | A4 | ||
DA | D2 | A2 | A1 | A3 | A4 | ||
Equivalence | BC | B2 | C2 | C1 | C3 | C4 | |
CB | C2 | B2 | B1 | B3 | B4 | ||
CD | C2 | D2 | D1 | D3 | D4 | ||
DC | D2 | C2 | C1 | C3 | C4 | ||
BD | B2 | D2 | D1 | D3 | D4 | ||
DB | D2 | B2 | B1 | B3 | B4 | ||
3 | Baseline | AB | A3 | B3 | B1 | B2 | B4 |
AC | A3 | C3 | C1 | C2 | C4 | ||
AD | A3 | D3 | D1 | D2 | D4 | ||
Symmetry | BA | B3 | A3 | A1 | A2 | A4 | |
CA | C3 | A3 | A1 | A2 | A4 | ||
DA | D3 | A3 | A1 | A2 | A4 | ||
Equivalence | BC | B3 | C3 | C1 | C2 | C4 | |
CB | C3 | B3 | B1 | B2 | B4 | ||
CD | C3 | D3 | D1 | D2 | D4 | ||
DC | D3 | C3 | C1 | C2 | C4 | ||
BD | B3 | D3 | D1 | D2 | D4 | ||
DB | D3 | B3 | B1 | B2 | B4 | ||
4 | Baseline | AB | A4 | B4 | B1 | B2 | B3 |
AC | A4 | C4 | C1 | C2 | C3 | ||
AD | A4 | D4 | D1 | D2 | D3 | ||
Symmetry | BA | B4 | A4 | A1 | A2 | A3 | |
CA | C4 | A4 | A1 | A2 | A3 | ||
DA | D4 | A4 | A1 | A2 | A3 | ||
Equivalence | BC | B4 | C4 | C1 | C2 | C3 | |
CB | C4 | B4 | B1 | B2 | B3 | ||
CD | C4 | D4 | D1 | D2 | D3 | ||
DC | D4 | C4 | C1 | C2 | C3 | ||
BD | B4 | D4 | D1 | D2 | D3 | ||
DB | D4 | B4 | B1 | B2 | B3 | ||
Appendix D
PowerPoint Lecture Audio Script
“By learning, we humans adapt to our environments. We learn to repeat acts that bring rewards and avoid acts that bring unwanted results. We learn new behaviors by observing events and people, and through language, we learn things we have neither experienced nor observed. But how do we learn?
Learning is based on principles of behavior, and today I will go over two of those: reinforcement and punishment. First, I will go over positive reinforcement. Positive reinforcement can be defined as the following: A behavior occurs and is followed by the immediate presentation of a stimulus. The behavior then occurs more often in the future under similar conditions as a result. Here is an example of positive reinforcement: A student bullies another child during lunch. The student’s friends laugh and cheer him on. In the future, the student bullies more children. If we have a look at this contingency table, you can see that an X is marked in the box representing a stimulus being presented following a behavior and the future probability of the behavior increases.
Negative reinforcement can be defined as the following: A behavior occurs and is followed by the immediate removal of a stimulus. The behavior then occurs more often in the future under similar conditions as a result. Here is an example of negative reinforcement: A student curses in class. He is removed from class and sent to the principal’s office. In the future, his cursing increases. If we have a look at this contingency table, you can see that an X is marked in the box representing a stimulus being removed following a behavior and the future probability of the behavior increases.
Positive punishment can be defined as the following: A behavior occurs and is followed by the immediate presentation of a stimulus. The behavior then occurs less often in the future under similar conditions as a result. Here is an example of positive punishment: A student eats peanut butter. He has an immediate allergic reaction. In the future, the student avoids eating peanut butter. If we have a look at this contingency table, you can see that an X is marked in the box representing a stimulus being presented following a behavior and the future probability of the behavior decreases.
Lastly, negative punishment can be defined as the following: A behavior is followed by the immediate removal of a stimulus. The behavior then occurs less often in the future under similar conditions as a result. Here is an example of negative punishment: A student tells a racist joke at school. His friends stop talking to him. In the future, the student no longer tells racist jokes at school. If we have a look at this contingency table, you can see that an X is marked in the box representing a stimulus being removed following a behavior and the future probability of the behavior decreases.”
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ostrosky, B.D., Reeve, K.F., Day-Watkins, J. et al. Comparing Group-Contingency and Individualized Equivalence-Based Instruction to a PowerPoint Lecture to Establish Equivalence Classes of Reinforcement and Punishment Procedures with College Students. Psychol Rec 72, 407–428 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-021-00495-6
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-021-00495-6