Professional Documents
Culture Documents
for extra time playing learning games or other special activities in the classroom at the end of
the academic session. A host of other positive behaviors are likely to accrue in this scenario
owing to the combined response costpositive reinforcement program. Attentive children are
less likely to be out of their seats, annoying others, and acting impulsively and more likely to
complete academic assignments. These behavioral changes have a high probability of
translating into additional benefits, such as improved learning for children receiving
contingent response cost, as well as for other children in the classroom who benefit indirectly
from a less disruptive environment that is more conducive to learning.
Extant research related to response cost focuses primarily on its use as a treatment
intervention. The procedure, however, is also used judiciously in other scientific works to
investigate a wide range of phenomena. For example, researchers interested in operant
conditioning principles incorporate the procedure into experimental protocols to examine how
particular punishment techniques affect behavior being maintained under different schedules
of reinforcement (i.e., to better understand underlying principles of behavior). Response cost
procedures are also invoked to investigate a wide range of phenomena that may be better
accounted for by individual differences in motivation. Investigations of behavioral inhibition
(i.e., the ability to withhold a previously reinforced response when signaled to do so by some
external cue such as a tone), for example, use response cost contingencies to examine whether
motivational factors underlie the typically poor response inhibition in children with attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). If poor inhibitory performance is observed despite the
imposition of response cost procedures scheduled to punish such behavior (and by extension,
improve inhibitory performance), this would render a motivational explanation unlikely and
support the notion of response inhibition deficits.
RESEARCH BASIS
Extant research provides strong support for the use of response cost when used as part of a
more comprehensive treatment approach. The majority of published research describes
various uses and modified applications of the procedure in regular education classrooms,
usually combined with an ongoing reinforcement program or token economy. For example,
when response cost principles are introduced as part of a classroom lottery, elementary
school-age boys exhibit rapid and significant reductions of inappropriate and disruptive
behavior and concomitant increases in attention and scholastic productivity.
Research consistently reveals that response cost is significantly more effective than no
intervention for reducing a wide range of inappropriate classroom behaviors, including clear
reductions in verbal and physical incidences of aggressive behavior. The procedure is also
used with special populations of children, such as those placed in special education
classrooms or with learning disabilities. Both populations show clear benefit from a combined
response cost-positive incentive program, including enhanced ability to pay attention for
longer intervals, and improved scholastic performance.
Response cost is also more effective than positive reinforcement alone in improving on-task
(attentive) behavior and academic performance in school-age children and as an effective
management technique for regulating the behavior of children with ADHD in particular. Other
research findings reveal that the technique, when coupled with a positive incentive program,
is as or more effective than carefully adjusted doses of psychostimulant medication such as
Ritalin (i.e., the most widely used treatment for ADHD) for improving attentive behavior,
reducing teacher ratings of disruptive behavior, and increasing daily academic work
productivity.
Other applications of response cost noted in the literature include using the technique to
increase (a) time spent playing the piano at home, (b) compliance in completing household
chores in a timely manner, and (c) homework completion. It is also commonly used in
institutional settings (e.g., inpatient units) as a component of a broader token economy or
positive incentive system for reducing inappropriate behavior and improving adaptive
behavior. Note in the above examples that changes in behavior are nearly always related to
increases in appropriate behavior rather than to decreases in inappropriate behavior, which
appears contradictory to the definition of punishment (i.e., a reduction in behavior). This
seeming contradiction is easily resolved, however, by carefully considering the specific
stimulus used and how it is applied to produce behavior change. In the above examples, 1
minute of outside playtime might be taken away following each interval exceeding 15 seconds
in which a child is not practicing the piano or completing chores or homework. This clearly
meets the criteria of punishment (i.e., the removal of a positive stimulus) as long as access to
outdoor play is viewed as a desirable activity by the child. When children decrease their time
off-task (the actual behavior being punished), they typically engage in more productive forms
of behavior such as playing the piano and completing homework and choreshence, the
noted increases in behavior represent indirect results of the procedure.
COMPLICATIONS
The most frequent complications associated with response cost include the (a) potential to
lose points too quickly, (b) mismanagement of the procedure by overly enthusiastic or callous
adults, (c) potential of evoking emotional behavior, and (d) tendency to focus on reductions in
inappropriate behavior to the exclusion of strengthening adaptive functioning.
Losing points too quickly is a common complication of response cost. Many individuals, and
younger children in particular, will simply give up and stop trying following rapid point loss.
This is particularly true in situations in which there is no opportunity to gain additional points
for appropriate behavior. The complication can usually be avoided by programming a positive
incentive program such that points are awarded on a fixed or variable schedule of
reinforcement (i.e., as opposed to providing all possible points initially) while limiting the
number of points that can be lost within a given period of time to match the reinforcement
schedule. The program should be modified whenever point loss exceeds point gains. That is,
the opportunity of rewards should always exceed the possibility of losing them. Invoking
these types of contingent relationships also helps to reduce the likelihood of misusing the
procedure by well-meaning but overly zealous adults.
Response cost, as with most forms of punishment, has the potential to invoke emotional
responding and aggression following point loss. Emotional responding, in turn, may result in
additional punishment, leading to a spiraling sequence of punishment and undesirable
behaviors. These situations can be largely avoided by (a) combining response cost with an
ongoing positive incentive system, (b) closely monitoring emotional reactions to point loss,
and (c) ensuring that the opportunity to earn points always exceeds the possibility of losing
points.
A final complication related to the use of response cost concerns the tendency to rely
exclusively on the procedure for behavioral control. Response cost, like all punishment
procedures, decreases, weakens, or eliminates undesirable behavior but does not directly teach
or strengthen adaptive behavior. A child who spends less time off-task must possess or be
taught the requisite skills by which to learn, and individuals who exhibit decreases in
disruptive or aggressive behavior must still learn how to interact appropriately with their
peers.
CASE ILLUSTRATION
George was a 9-year-old, third grade, Caucasian male with a protracted history of
classroom behavior problems beginning shortly after entering the first grade. He experienced
significant difficulty paying attention to academic assignments or classroom instruction for
more than a few minutes at a time, disturbed other children, was capricious, and was
frequently out of his seat. A comprehensive diagnostic evaluation at the community mental
health clinic revealed that George met diagnostic criteria for ADHD. George's mother
consulted with the mental health center, her son's pediatrician, and relevant school personnel
before deciding on a course of therapy for her son. Following a 1-week baseline assessment
period (i.e., no intervention), George received three dosages (morning and early afternoon) of
a commonly prescribed psychostimulant medication (Ritalin) consisting of 5 milligrams, 10
milligrams, and 15 milligrams, each for a 2-week time interval. He exhibited clear and
immediate improvement in his ability to remain attentive (on-task) during academic
assignments, completed significantly more academic assignments on a daily basis, and was
less disruptive in the classroom and at school in general, with the highest rates of combined
improvements occurring during the 10-milligram weeks.
The medication regimen was discontinued after the 6-week trial period and, following a
second baseline condition, replaced by an in-class, combined incentiveresponse cost
intervention for the ensuing 4 weeks. In this unique application, response cost was coupled
with positive reinforcement to create the Attentional Training System (ATS), which consists
of student and teacher modules. A base unit is placed on the child's desk and assigns one point
for each minute the child is on-task. The classroom teacher uses a lightweight, handheld,
wireless control unit and monitors the child's behavior from anywhere in the room, which
facilitates concomitant involvement in other instructional activities (e.g., working with other
children in small groups in the classroom). Unlike other conventional classroom behavioral
systems, the teacher does nothing if the child is on-task (i.e., the child is automatically
awarded one point per minute by the ATS), and activates a button on the handheld unit if the
child is off-task. Pushing the button causes a red light to illuminate on the child's unit and
signals the child that a point has been deducted from the accumulated total. A counter on the
front of the child's unit shows the total number of accumulated points earned throughout the
academic session to enable children to monitor their own progress.
George and the classroom teacher received their respective modules and detailed instructions
concerning the ATS. The ATS was programmed such that George earned one point for each
minute that he remained attentive to his academic assignments or teacher instruction and lost
one point following each occasion in which the classroom teacher noticed that he was offtask. Points were traded in at the conclusion of each academic assignment throughout the day
for access to special activities available within the classroom (i.e., each point earned 1 minute
of access to special activities). George's favorite special activity incentives included playing
learning games on the computer and drawing with colored markers. Implementation of the
ATS resulted in clear and sustained increases in attentive behavior, assignment completion,
and reduced disruptiveness in the classroom over the 4-week period. Positive effects,
however, did not generalize to situations outside the classroom. George continued to
experience behavior problems during recess and other activities that occurred away from the
classroom in which the ATS was inoperative.
A final, 1-week baseline phase was scheduled following the discontinuation of the response
cost procedure to facilitate comparisons of the two treatments with no intervention. The final
baseline (no intervention) period also allowed the treatment team to determine whether any
gains associated with response cost were maintained following its discontinuation (i.e.,
treatment maintenance effects). Inspection of the data revealed that George reverted back to
his initial baseline levels of behavior and academic performance after a few days of no
treatment. This finding was largely expected and is consistent with results obtained from
highly controlled treatment outcome studies involving psychostimulant and behavioral
treatments (i.e., neither is associated with sustained gains following the withdrawal of active
treatment).
George's mother elected to have her son continue with the response cost treatment for the
remainder of the school year but switched him to a 10-milligram psychostimulant regimen the
following year, owing to inconsistent use of the behavior management procedure by the new
classroom teacher.
Mark D. Rapport and Gezim Begolli
Further Reading
Entry Citation:
Rapport, Mark D., and Gezim Begolli. "Response Cost." Encyclopedia of Behavior
Modification and Cognitive Behavior Therapy. 2007. SAGE Publications. 15 Apr. 2008.
<http://sage-ereference.com/cbt/Article_n2106.html>.