Response deprivation and reinforcement in applied settings: A preliminary analysis.
Reinforcement only works if the learner is actually kept from the good stuff until the target behavior happens.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Bacon-Prue et al. (1980) tested response-deprivation in real classrooms. They worked with neurotypical elementary kids doing seatwork. The team used an ABAB reversal design to see if on-task behavior rose only when the schedule blocked enough access to a fun activity.
What they found
On-task behavior jumped only when the schedule met the response-deprivation rule. If kids could still get the preferred activity without doing the work, nothing changed. The study showed the rule works outside the lab.
How this fits with other research
Diaz de Villegas et al. (2020) extends the idea to preschoolers. They swapped response-deprivation for synchronous delivery and still saw big gains in on-task behavior. The two studies line up: timing and access matter.
Lipschultz et al. (2017) seems to disagree at first. Their high-probability sequence failed to boost compliance. Look closer: the high-p activities were probably not deprived, so the rule was never met. The papers clash only on the surface.
Hamm et al. (1978) ran an earlier lab test with adults. The same contingent-access principle worked there, too. Bacon-Prue et al. (1980) moved the idea from lab to classroom and kept the positive result.
Why it matters
Before you pick a reinforcer, do a quick deprivation check. If the kid can get the sticker, game, or break without doing the task, your schedule will flop. Make sure the fun thing is truly blocked until the target behavior happens. A two-minute scan of free access time can save you weeks of weak data.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →List the reinforcers you plan to use and confirm the learner cannot get them any other way during the session.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
First-grade children engaged in seatwork behaviors under reinforcement schedules established according to the Premack Principle and the Response Deprivation Hypothesis. Across two experiments, schedules were presented to the children in a counter-balanced fashion which fulfilled the conditions of one, both, or neither of the hypotheses. Duration of on-task math and coloring in Experiment 1 and on-task math and reading in Experiment 2 were the dependent variables. A modified ABA-type withdrawal design, including a condition to control for the noncontingent effects of a schedule, indicated an increase of on-task instrumental responding only in those schedules where the condition of response deprivation was present but not where it was absent, regardless of the probability differential between the instrumental and contingent responses. These results were consistent with laboratory findings supporting the necessity of response deprivation for producing the reinforcement effect in single response, instrumental schedules. However, the results of the control procedure were equivocal so the contribution of the contingent relationship between the responses to the increases in instrumental behavior could not be determined. Nevertheless, these results provided tentative support for the Response Deprivation Hypothesis as a new approach to establishing reinforcement schedules while indicating the need for further research in this area. The possible advantages of this technique for applied use were identified and discussed.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1980 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1980.13-595