1. What is the hypothesis of this study?
2. Was the sample chosen for this study adequate? Why or why not?
3. What was the independent variable?
4. What was the dependent variable?
5. What kind of study design was used?

I need help with these questions for the attached article

JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2014, 47, 192–197 NUMBER 1 (SPRING) THE EFFECTS OF PRESENTING DELAYS BEFORE AND AFTER TASK
COMPLETION ON SELF-CONTROL RESPONDING IN CHILDREN
WITH BEHAVIOR DISORDERS
DANA M. GADAIRE AND WAYNE W. FISHER UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER AND MARK STEEGE
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MAINE We examined relations between self-control responding and environmental variables with 3 children
with behavior disorders. Differential delays were presented before or after task completion in a
single-session reversal design. Delays presented before task completion produced more impulsive
responding than those presented after task completion for all participants.
Key words: choice, delayed reinforcement, impulsivity, self-control Many behavior problems (e.g., gambling,
disruption) involve deficits in self-control
(Nevin, 1991). In a typical procedure, selfcontrol is assessed using two equivalent response
options in the initial link of a concurrent-chains
schedule; one produces a smaller, immediate
reinforcer and the other produces a larger, delayed
reinforcer. In this arrangement, choice responding is primarily influenced by differences between
the terminal links (e.g., longer delays for the
larger reinforcer bias responding toward the
smaller, more immediate reinforcer; Fisher &
Mazur, 1997). However, delays between the
initial and terminal links can also bias responding
toward either the self-control or impulsive option
(Davison, 1988).
In a series of studies on self-control in children,
Mischel and colleagues found that variables
present during the initial choice presentation
biased responding toward or away from selfThis study was conducted in partial fulfillment of the first
author’s requirements for the PsyD degree at the University
of Southern Maine.
Address correspondence to Dana Gadaire, who is now at
the Florida Institute of Technology, 150 W. University Blvd,
Melbourne, Florida 32901 (email: dgadaire@fit.edu).
doi: 10.1002/jaba.104 control (e.g., Mischel, Ebbesen, & Raskoff Zeiss,
1972; Mischel & Gilligan, 1964). In what came
to be known as the “marshmallow experiment”
(Mischel et al., 1972), experimenters presented
children with a single piece of candy and told
them that if they did not eat it, they would receive
two pieces when the experimenter returned
(e.g., after 15 min). In this procedure, only the
impulsive response option was available for most
of the trial, and participants were required to
inhibit responding toward the smaller reinforcer
throughout the unsignaled delay interval. This
procedure differs from traditional behavioranalytic research on self-control, which (a)
focuses almost exclusively on delays that follow
a choice response (i.e., terminal link), and (b)
removes the option to engage in impulsive
responding pursuant to a self-control response.
In the current study, we evaluated whether
presentation of delays in the initial link of a selfcontrol procedure would bias responding toward
the impulsive option in children who had been
referred for the treatment of problem behavior.
This study is important because it directly
compares the effects of two self-control choice
procedures with delays presented in the initial
link (as Mischel and colleagues used) and in the 192 EFFECTS OF DELAY PRESENTATION ON SELF-CONTROL
terminal link (as evident in most behavioral
studies). It also extends the research on selfcontrol by incorporating choices between qualitatively, as opposed to quantitatively, distinct
stimuli and by including signaled delays.
METHOD
Participants and Setting
Participants included three boys who had been
reported by caregivers to engage in impulsive
behavior. Brian, 5 years old, had been diagnosed
with autism. Stewart, 4 years old, had been
diagnosed with a disruptive behavior disorder.
Chris, 4 years old, had been diagnosed with
adjustment disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Sessions were conducted in
treatment rooms at an outpatient clinic.
Response Measurement and Treatment Integrity
Observers recorded which reinforcer was
chosen and the level of prompting required for
task completion (i.e., verbal, gestural, physical)
during each trial of a 12-trial session. Reinforcer
selection was defined as the participant orienting
toward and touching task materials associated
with a reinforcer. Task completion was defined as
circling a response (Brian) or tracing a printed
letter (Stewart and Chris). All participants
engaged in independent reinforcer selection
and task completion (i.e., without gestural or
physical prompts) on 100% of trials.
We collected reliability and treatment integrity
data during 75% (Brian) to 100% (Chris and
Stewart) of sessions. Interobserver agreement
(percentage of trials with agreements) was 100%
for all participants. Perfect treatment integrity
(correct stimulus delivery within 2 s of the
intended delay) was recorded on 99% of trials
for Brian and 100% of trials for Stewart and
Chris.
Preassessment Procedure
Preference assessment. We conducted a preference assessment (Fisher et al., 1992) to identify 193 participants’ high- (HP) and low- (LP) preference
stimuli, defined as those chosen during at least
80% or no more than 25% of trials, respectively.
The resulting stimuli were Playstation (HP) and
music (LP) for Brian; gummy bears (HP) and ball
(LP) for Stewart; and fruit snacks (HP) and cars
(LP) for Chris.
Reinforcer sensitivity assessment. We conducted
this assessment to show that participants would
select and complete a task associated with either
one of the reinforcers (HP or LP) when the other
option in a concurrent-chains schedule produced
no consequence (i.e., extinction). During the
initial link of each trial of a 12-trial session, we
presented the task associated with one reinforcer
and the task associated with extinction. Each task
was correlated with a unique discriminative
stimulus (i.e., paper color). Choosing the task
associated with reinforcement produced access to
the reinforcer in the terminal link for 30 s.
Choosing the other task produced no consequence during the 30-s terminal link. This
assessment ended when a participant selected the
task associated with reinforcement on at least
80% of trials for two consecutive sessions, which
all participants did in the first two sessions.
Reinforcer quality assessment. We conducted
this assessment to show that participants would
choose the HP stimulus over the LP stimulus
when both were available immediately. Procedures were identical to the prior assessment
except that the alternatives presented in the initial
link produced either the HP or LP stimulus in the
terminal link. All participants chose the task
associated with the HP stimulus during at least
90% trials for two consecutive sessions.
Delay sensitivity assessment. We conducted this
assessment to show that participants would
choose an immediate over a delayed reinforcer.
Procedures were identical to the prior assessment
except that the discriminative stimulus (i.e.,
colored background) correlated with the HP
stimulus was present for both response options
and a kitchen timer was present for the delayed
response option. If the participant chose the 194 DANA M. GADAIRE et al. immediate response option, immediate access to
the HP stimulus was provided, whereas a signaled
delay of 60 s preceded reinforcer delivery for
choices allocated toward the delayed option. All
participants chose the task that produced
immediate access to reinforcement on 100% of
trials for two consecutive sessions. participant received access to the HP task
followed by immediate access to its associated
stimulus. Thus, the participant could select the
LP task and complete it immediately or wait for
the timer to finish and complete the HP task. Delay Exposure Before and After Task Completion
The following two conditions were alternated
in a single-session reversal design. The terminallink delay condition represented a typical selfcontrol arrangement except that in the current
study, the participant chose between an immediate LP reinforcer or a delayed HP reinforcer.
Terminal-link delay (delay after task completion). Procedures were identical to the delay
sensitivity assessment with the following exceptions (see Figure 1). In the initial link, the tasks
and stimuli associated with the LP and HP
stimuli were present at the start of each trial, and
the timer was placed next to the HP task. The
timer was set for each trial according to the
following sequence, which was repeated twice in
each 12-trial session: 60 s, 120 s, 240 s, 240 s,
120 s, 60 s. If the participant selected the LP
stimulus and completed the associated task, that
reinforcer was presented immediately and for
30 s. If the participant selected the HP stimulus
and completed its associated task, the timer was
activated and the HP stimulus was delivered for
30 s after the associated delay interval had
elapsed.
Initial-link delay (delay before task completion).
Procedures were identical to those described
above except that programmed delays occurred
before presentation of each task (signaled by the
absence of the HP task from the participant’s
visual field). HP and LP stimuli were present as
was the LP task. Selection of the LP stimulus
resulted in access to the LP task followed by
immediate access to its associated stimulus.
Selection of the HP stimulus resulted in
activation of the timer. After the delay programmed for the trial elapsed (e.g., after 60 s), the In the phases in which the delay occurred after
task completion, all participants allocated more
responding toward the task associated with the
HP reinforcer (see Figure 2). In contrast, when
the delay intervals occurred before task access,
response allocation shifted towards the task
associated with the LP reinforcer. Thus, these
results replicate and extend behavioral research
on self-control to include choices between
qualitatively distinct stimuli. Presentation of
delays before task access, the condition under
which the children engaged in more impulsive
responding, may be analogous to the choices
children face in their natural environments in two
ways. First, when children are confronted with
choices between self-control options and impulsive options (e.g., completing homework immediately to earn access to a favorite video game or
watching a less preferred television show immediately), stimuli associated with the former
option may be less salient (e.g., the book and
worksheets in the child’s backpack in a closet).
However, stimuli associated with the latter option
are often present and highly salient (e.g.,
television on and visible to child). Second, even
when children initially choose a self-control
option that involves a lengthy delay before
reinforcer delivery, the passage of time may
produce a shift in the child’s preference toward
the impulsive option (e.g., see Neef, Mace, &
Shade, 1993). That is, shifts in preference after an
initial selection may be more likely for the selfcontrol option because the establishing operations for both reinforcers are in effect during the
wait period (and discriminative stimuli for
immediate reinforcement remain present). Using
the above example, if the child begins to complete RESULTS AND DISCUSSION EFFECTS OF DELAY PRESENTATION ON SELF-CONTROL
Delay Following
Task Completion 195 Delay Prior to
Task Completion Initial Link
Selection
Response
(FR 1)
Terminal Link LP HP LP Task Task Task HP Task
Completion
(FR 1)
SR+
(LP) SR+
(LP)
Task Reinforcer
Access
SR+
(HP) SR+
(HP) Figure 1. Procedure in which delays occur before and after task completion. LP indicates a selection (verbal or gestural) of
the task associated with the participant’s LP stimulus. HP indicates a selection (verbal or gestural) of the task associated with
the participant’s HP stimulus. homework in the presence of the television, at
any time he or she may stop working on
homework and attend to the television instead.
By contrast, the impulsive option results in
immediate reinforcer consumption and removal
of its establishing operation. Given that we did
not isolate the variables that controlled selfcontrol responding in this study, further research
is warranted to evaluate these hypotheses.
This study had several limitations that should
be noted. First, exposures to each of the
conditions were brief (12 trials per condition),
and participants may have responded differently
with prolonged exposure. Second, when the delay
was programmed before task completion, participants were presented with the option to
complete the task associated with the LP stimulus
in the absence of the task associated with the HP stimulus. Both HP and LP reinforcers were visible
on all trials; however, when the delay occurred
before task access, participants may have completed the task that was presented to them rather
than making choices as a function of differential
delays. Research on delayed gratification suggests
that salience of a choice (e.g., visibility) may affect
self-control responding (Shoda, Mischel, &
Peake, 1990). Future research is needed to
evaluate the degree to which the presence or
absence of task-related materials affects choice
responding.
Furthermore, the conditions under which
delayed access to reinforcement is likely to affect
tolerance for future delays are not well understood. For instance, a choice to wait for access to
the HP stimulus on one trial may affect choice
responding on subsequent trials, a behavioral DANA M. GADAIRE et al. 196
Delay Following
Task Compleon Delay Following
Task Compleon Delay Prior to
Task Compleon Delay Prior to
Task Compleon Percentage of Opportunies Choosing High Preference Smulus 100
75 Brian
50
25
0 Delay Prior to
Task Compleon 100 Delay Prior to
Task Compleon 75 Stewart 50 High Preference 25
0 60 100 60 240 120 240 Delay Prior to
Task Compleon 75 Delay Following
Task Compleon 50 Chris Delay Prior to
Task Compleon 25
00 120 60
60 120
120 240
240 60
60 120
120 240
240 60
60 120
120 240 60 120 240 Duraon (in Seconds) Figure 2. Results for Brian, Stewart, and Chris. Delay values (60 s to 240 s) are depicted on each x axis, and the
percentage of trials in which responding was allocated toward the HP stimulus is depicted on each y axis. For Chris, the second
phase depicts the average of two consecutive sessions. effect observed in basic research on self-control
(e.g., Mazur, 2006). This effect might be larger
when delays are predictable (e.g., ascending and
descending sequences of delay values, as in the
current study) rather than randomly distributed.
The differential levels of self-control responding displayed by the participants in this study
suggest several intervention strategies worthy of
further evaluation. It may be that differential
contingencies are more salient when delays occur
before rather than after a response. It is also
possible that the presence of the LP option during
the delay interval for the HP reinforcer increases
the likelihood of impulsive responding. Thus, the
likelihood of self-control responding might be
increased by introducing the option to engage
in a commitment response and subsequently removing the alternative option (Rachlin &
Green, 1972). When access to competing sources
of reinforcement cannot be eliminated, increasing the salience of the HP stimulus relative to the
LP stimulus may promote self-control choices.
Continued investigation is needed to further
our understanding of self-control and impulsivity
in children with behavior disorders. Treatment
evaluations are also needed to assess the effectiveness of interventions related to the types of choices
children experience in their natural environments.
REFERENCES
Davison, M. (1988). Concurrent schedules: Interaction of
reinforcer frequency and reinforcer duration. Journal of
the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 339–349. doi:
10.1901/jeab.1988.49-339 EFFECTS OF DELAY PRESENTATION ON SELF-CONTROL
Fisher, W. W., & Mazur, J. E. (1997). Basic and applied
research on choice responding. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 30, 387–410. doi: 10.1901/
jaba.1997.30-387
Fisher, W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L. P.,
Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison of
two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons
with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 25, 491–498. doi: 10.1901/
jaba.1992.25-491
Mazur, J. E. (2006). Choice between single and multiple
reinforcers in concurrent-chains schedules. Journal of
the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 86, 211–222. doi:
10.1901/jeab.2006.94-05
Mischel, W., Ebbesen, E. B., & Raskoff Zeiss, A. (1972).
Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of
gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
21, 204–218. doi: 10.1037/h0032198
Mischel, W., & Gilligan, C. (1964). Delay of gratification,
motivation for the prohibited gratification, and
responses to temptation. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 69, 411–417. doi: 10.1037/h0048918 197 Neef, N. A., Mace, F. C., & Shade, D. (1993). Impulsivity in
students with serious emotional disturbance: The
interactive effects of reinforce rate, delay, and quality.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 37–52. doi:
10.1901/jaba.1993.26-37
Nevin, J. A. (1991). Behavior analysis and global survival. In
I. Waris (Ed.), Human behavior in today’s world (pp. 39–
49). New York, NY: Praeger.
Rachlin, H., & Green, L. (1972). Commitment, choice and
self-control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 17, 15–22. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.17-15
Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Peake, P. K. (1990). Predicting
adolescent cognitive and self-regulatory competencies
from preschool delay of gratification: Identifying
diagnostic conditions. Developmental Psychology, 26,
978–986. Retrieved from http://bingschool.stanford.
edu/pub/wmischel/115-Dev%20Psych%201990.pdf
Received February 28, 2013
Final acceptance December 2, 2013
Action Editor, Gregory Hanley Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

 

Attachments:

• 1506952797-out1.pdf