Response+Cost

1. Description of Strategy

a) Response cost is a form of behavior management where teachers take away reinforcers that students have previously earned. For example, in class, Dr. Aronin discussed a ticket system where students received tickets for demonstrating positive behaviors. A response cost system would include penalties where tickets were collected for inappropriate behaviors (e.g. talking out could cost you 2 tickets). It is important to note that if a response cost system is used, it should be in conjunction with ample amounts of praise and positive reinforcement. This system is different than a system where students “work for .” Below is a link to a quick description of response cost. It is clear that the author of this site favors proactive positive behavior supports. []  b) The majority of the literature which I have read has studied the effectiveness of response cost with upper-elementary, middle, and high school students with mild to moderate behavior issues and such labels as ED, BD, ADHD, as well as students with autism. I have also come across studies of adults and individuals with more significant disabilities that support the effectiveness of response cost. c) There are no formal qualifications for individuals to implement a response cost system. d) This system could be implemented without any training or financial cost. Of course, you must have reinforcers to take away, however, with planning these reinforcers can be of no cost to you, ranging from recess time to line jump passes. There would be an initial investment of time in order to establish clear expectations and the actual “costs.” That is, student (and teachers) should know up front what the standard cost is for inappropriate behavior. e) The main risk associated with response cost is more of a psychological or philosophical risk. That is, response cost does have a negative or punitive aspect. Some teachers are more comfortable rewarding positive behavior than punishing negative behavior. Furthermore, some professionals argue that you can not take away what you have given a student. You also run the risk of needing a secondary system if a student becomes bankrupt. f) Response cost is intended to decrease problem behavior by heightening students’ attention to their behavior and, for lack of a better term, making it more painful for the student. If the item that is taken away is indeed reinforcing (or has the power to be reinforcing such as a ticket that will eventually lead to more time doing a preferred activity), then the student is more likely to do whatever is in their power to keep that item. g) I have not seen research for the response cost method being implemented at the building level. However, it appears to me that it could be used in a variety of school settings from small group/resource room settings to whole class settings. It may become difficult to implement the strategy across settings with multiple teachers. h) Response cost definitely has advocates and opponents in the field. According to a 1982 study conducted by Rapport, Murphy, & Bailey and cited on LD online, “response cost may be the most powerful means of managing consequences for children with ADHD or other disruptive behavior problems.” The website goes on to claim that “A substantial body of research documents the effectiveness of response cost in the classroom.” However, no research studies conducted later than 1992 were cited in LD Online’s article found here []. In spite of the research in the field proving the efficacy of response cost, many professionals are simply more comfortable choosing from other, more positive (and also research driven) methods. It is a matter of personal philosophy. 2. APA reference Falcomata, T., Roane, H., Hovanetz, A., Kettering, T., & Keeney, K. (2004). An evaluation of response cost in the treatment of inappropriate vocalizations maintained by automatic reinforcement. //Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,// 1, 83-87. a) This was a single subject study. The subject was only described as an 18 year old man with autism who was enrolled in a full day program for individuals with significant behavior needs. b) The design of the study consisted of the comparison of baseline with two treatment conditions in a reversal ABCABCB design studying automatically reinforced behavior (vocalizations exhibited with others as well as when alone). c) The dependent variable was the number of “inappropriate verbalizations” recorded during 10 minute play sessions. d)The independent variables (two treatment conditions) used were access to a preferred activity, and then response cost, where access was taken away for exhibiting the target behavior (inappropriate verbalizations). e) The authors found that by providing a preferred activity (a Walkman radio) the target behavior was reduced from 99% to 56%. However, upon instituting a response cost system, the target behavior was further reduced to 1.2%. These results were confirmed during a reverse baseline phase. These results can be viewed by clicking below.

