راهکارهای درمانی خاص در درمان لکنت زبان کلینیک تخصصی لکنت کرج شهرک اوج- خیابان بوعلی- جنب مسجد امام علی
“Operant behaviours are those that are controlled – increased, decreased, or changed in form – by their consequences” (Costello, 1984, p. 107). Thus, a given behaviour or response will be affected by the consequences of that behaviour. Central to the theory is the principle of reinforcement. If a reac¬tion (or response) to a behaviour is positive (positive reinforcement), then there is an increased likelihood that the behaviour will occur in the future. Any stimulus that generates an increase in the response frequency is called a positive reinforcer. Conversely, a negative reaction to a stimulus (punishment) is likely to decrease the likelihood of that behaviour occuring again. Simple examples of positive reinforcement would be applauding following a per¬formance, or allowing special privileges to a child who has been particularly helpful. Punishment could be the throwing of rotten fruit at a performance, or sending a child to their room for misbehaving. To these types of reinforce¬ment we can also add two more: the cessation of a negative reinforcer to produce positive reinforcement and conversely the withdrawal of a positive reinforcer to create negative reinforcement, and therefore decrease response rates. In operant terms, response rates may be “extinguished” by judicial manipulation of these stimulus-response relationships, or as they are more generally known, response contingent stimuli (RCS).
Contingent punishment of stuttering
So how does operant conditioning explain stuttering? The working hypo¬thesis of operant theory follows the tenet that (a) stuttering is a learned behaviour. It therefore follows that (b) stuttering occurs in response to inter¬actions between an individual’s behaviour and the environment in which that behaviour occurs. So, it should therefore be possible to control levels of stut¬tering by the manipulation of reinforcement and punishment. This has been attempted in many studies, and there are a number which support the operant standpoint (see Table 6.1).
Aside from the very obvious ethical problems with some of this research, there are also methodological ones. For example, Flanagan, Goldiamond, and Azrin’s (1959) research did not