Further evaluation of the high-probability instructional sequence with and without programmed reinforcement.
High-p instructions only lift low-p compliance when the easy responses earn real reinforcement—praise alone fails.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team tested the high-probability (high-p) instructional sequence in a classroom. They wanted to know if praise alone could power the sequence.
Kids first got three easy instructions they usually obeyed. After each easy one, the teacher either gave an edible treat or just said "good job." Then the teacher gave one hard instruction.
What they found
Compliance jumped only when the easy instructions earned candy or crackers. Praise without food did nothing.
The sequence worked because the edible item was real reinforcement, not just kind words.
How this fits with other research
Lipschultz et al. (2017) saw zero gain from the same sequence. The difference: they used praise, not food. Together the papers show the reinforcer must be strong.
Lord et al. (1997) already warned that weak reinforcers blunt momentum. Boudreau et al. (2015) now confirm that rule in a regular classroom.
Waldron et al. (2023) later repeated the food-powered sequence with autistic children and still got big gains. The edible trick travels across diagnoses.
Why it matters
If you run high-p sequences and see no boost, check what follows the easy instructions. Swap praise for a bite of preferred food, a token, or brief screen time. One quick change can turn a dead procedure into a reliable compliance tool.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Give one small edible after each high-p instruction before you present the hard request.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In 2 experiments, we examined the effects of programmed reinforcement for compliance with high-probability (high-p) instructions on compliance with low-probability (low-p) instructions. In Experiment 1, we compared the high-p sequence with and without programmed reinforcement (i.e., edible items) for compliance with high-p instructions. Results showed that the high-p sequence increased compliance with low-p instructions only when compliance with high-p instructions was followed by reinforcement. In Experiment 2, we examined the role of reinforcer quality by delivering a lower quality reinforcer (praise) for compliance with high-p instructions. Results of Experiment 2 showed that the high-p sequence with lower quality reinforcement did not improve compliance with low-p instructions; the addition of a higher quality reinforcer (i.e., edible items) contingent on compliance with high-p instructions did increase compliance with low-p instructions.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2015 · doi:10.1002/jaba.218