Behavioral contrast and behavior therapy

doi:10.1016/S0005-7894(81)80075-5

Behavior Therapy

Volume 12, Issue 2, March 1981, Pages 231-246

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(81)80075-5 Get rights and content

A selective review of behavioral contrast with animals and humans is presented to illustrate the potential implications of contrast for behavior therapy. Examples of behavior modification procedures applied according to a contrast paradigm where generalization, contrast, and no contrast effects were observed are discussed. Possible explanations of the inconsistency of occurrence of the phenomenon are suggested. Additionally a number of ethical considerations resulting from the occurrence of contrast effects are discussed.

References Notes (2)

SimonS.J.
Behavioral contrast: The effects of contrast manipulations upon the classroom behavior of deaf children
(1978)
Gross, A. M., Eudy, C., & Drabman, R. S. Training parents to perform physical therapy with their physically handicapped...

Cited by (26)

Three tests of 'anticipatory responding' as an account for induction produced by upcoming food-pellet reinforcement
2001, Behavioural Processes
Previous research has demonstrated that rats’ rates of lever pressing for low-concentration liquid-sucrose reinforcers are increased when food-pellet, rather than sucrose, reinforcement will be upcoming in the same session (i.e. induction). The present experiments were designed to determine whether this induction was the product of ‘anticipatory responses’ for the upcoming food pellets being added to the responses being made for the currently available sucrose reinforcement. Experiment 1 tested this idea by summing sucrose-reinforced responding and ‘anticipatory responding’ from different conditions and comparing the sum to responding from a third condition in which subjects responded for sucrose when food-pellet reinforcement was upcoming. The comparison yielded similar response rates. Experiment 2 employed a blackout, of different durations in different conditions, to delay the upcoming food-pellet reinforcement. Consistent with the anticipatory-responding account, the delay decreased the size of the induction. However, results from the blackouts were not entirely consistent with the anticipatory-responding explanation. Experiment 3 provided, in some conditions, sucrose and food-pellet reinforcement in the first and second halves of the session, respectively, for responding on separate levers. These conditions separated ‘anticipatory responses’ for the food pellets from responses for the sucrose reinforcers. However, induction in responding for sucrose was still present. Together, these experiments demonstrate that, although anticipatory responses may contribute to induction in some instances, they are not solely responsible for the effect.
Behavioral contrast using different reinforcers: Effect of baseline rate of reinforcement
1998, Behavioural Processes
The present study determined whether behavioral contrast would occur when different reinforcers were delivered in the different components and whether its size would vary at different baseline rates of reinforcement. Pigeons pecked keys on a multiple variable-interval schedule. Mixed grain was the reinforcer in one component and wheat was the reinforcer in the other component. In contrast conditions, the rate of wheat reinforcement was increased or decreased, from the baseline delivery rate, by a factor of four. Contrast was studied at four different baseline rates of reinforcement. Contrast was usually observed and its size almost always varied directly with the programmed baseline rate of reinforcement. The present results indicate that changes in the condition of reinforcement of a different reinforcer can produce contrast. They also broaden the potential implications of behavioral contrast.
Behavioral contrast with changes in duration and rate of reinforcement
1997, Behavioural Processes
Behavioral contrast can be defined as an inverse relation between rate of responding in one component of a multiple schedule and conditions of reinforcement in the other components. The present study was an attempt to produce contrast with changes in duration of reinforcement. Pigeons pecked a key for mixed grain delivered by a multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedule. In Experiment 1, the reinforcer duration in the second component was decreased or increased, for different subjects, by a factor of two, four, and six from that delivered during baseline. These changes usually produced contrast. In Experiment 2, rate, duration, or rate and duration of reinforcement varied in the second component. Contrast was usually observed when only one variable was manipulated. When both variables were manipulated in the same condition, but in opposite directions, responding in the constant component usually changed inversely with the change in rate of reinforcement, not the change in reinforcer duration. The results demonstrate that changes in duration of reinforcement can produce contrast. They also increase the empirical base for which a successful theoretical account of contrast must encompass and the generality of contrast, which increases its potential practical implications.
Successful response prevention of rituals producing increase then decrease of untreated rituals
1982, Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry
Effects consistent with behavioral contrast during a multiple schedule for discrimination training on mands for attention
2023, Behavioral Interventions
Examining the Efficacy of Parent–Child Interaction Therapy with Children on the Autism Spectrum
2016, Journal of Child and Family Studies

View all citing articles on Scopus

^*: The authors thank Fran K. McSweeney and J. J. McDowell, for their comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

View full text

Behavioral contrast and behavior therapy*

Behavioral contrast: The effects of contrast manipulations upon the classroom behavior of deaf children