Coercipator Generalization

Ideally, the teacher would leave the consultative process with a new strategy and know when to apply it. In other words, the consultee should demonstrate stimulus generalization. However, this does not necessarily happen organically. Rather the consultant should be proactive in the training stage to foster stimulus generalization. A barrier to stimulus generalization may be insufficient trained exemplars. Perhaps a teacher only applies the intervention when behavior clearly meets the behavioral definition, letting approximations of the target behavior slide. The consultant could educate the teacher about the principles of behavioral management. Specifically, the consultant could encourage the teacher to look at function over topography when
The coercive cycle is often cited as negatively reinforcing caregivers to give in to child’s demands. In the coercive cycle, the child misbehaves, the parent offers a command, the child is noncompliant and escalates problem behavior, the parent then offers a harsher command, and the child again escalates the problem behavior. This cycle continues until the parent withdraws the demand at which time the child also withdraws the problem behavior, thus negatively reinforcing the parent. At the Summer Treatment Program, I found myself in a coercive cycle on the very first day. During Art Class, a student bothered his peers and was extremely off task. I instructed him to work on his art project. Next, the student demonstrated out of seat behavior. I asked the student to take his seat. This cycle went on for another 30 minutes where he escalated behavior and I tried to correct it. Exhausted and frustrated, I stopped issuing commands. The student returned to his seat and talked quietly with the peers around him. While he was not working on his art project, this was a major improvement from the behaviors I had seen moments prior. At the end of the day, I debriefed with my supervisor. They educated me on coercive cycles and warned me of the negatively reinforcing properties. Beyond that, they instructed me to do my best to get eventual compliance. Consultants can address the issue of
To build on the example above, there were children working quietly and diligently on their artwork. It was much easier and more enjoyable for me to praise these students for their hard work than to constantly correct the student I was in the coercive cycle with. Teachers may face the same sort of competing contingencies in the classroom. Perhaps there are other bright, well-behaved students with which the teacher would prefer to interact. Perhaps grading papers is more reinforcing than classroom management. Interventions themselves are not always inherently rewarding. It can be aversive to implement corrective feedback, response cost, and time out as part of an intervention. It may be more reinforcing in the short term to do nothing than to engage in the potentially aversive intervention. However, interventions are reinforcing when they improve student behavior. Consultants can help make the reinforcing properties of an intervention more salient by offering praise, supportive statements, and empathy in consultative meetings (Allen & Warzack, 2000). This may make the consultation process more enjoyable for the consultee as well as create an environment where the teacher feels comfortable asking questions to improve treatment integrity. Secondly, the consultant may enlist the support of others who can provide reinforcement for implementing the