5. The SM Intervention
Target behavior: Eating at a Restaurant
Intervention: Lose $2 for meals eaten out
after already having eaten out that week
Contingencies: analog to a penalty contingency
Deadline (SD): n/a
PM manager: Lori June
Start Date: June 13, 2011
End Date: August 11, 2011
6. Ineffective Natural
Contingency
BEFORE BEHAVIOR AFTER
Have given Eat one meal Have
amount at a infinitesimally
of money restaurant less money
The outcome was too small to control my behavior,
though eating out many times has a cumulative
significance on a bank account
9. 5
Weeks at a Glance
Cum. Behavior: Meals I Baseline SM Recycle
Eat from a Restaurant 4
3
2
Goal Line
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Starting Date:
June 13, 2011 Weeks
10. Target Behavior Graph
Cum. Behavior Meals I Eat
Weeks at a Glance
Baseline Goal line Recycle
14
SM
12
at Home
10
8
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Starting Date: June 13, 2011
Weeks
11. Benefit Measure Graph
Baseline SM
Meals from a Restaurant
4
Cum. Behavior of Eating
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Weeks
12. Problems During Intervention
Not always enough time to go grocery
shopping
Ineffective contingency
$2 penalty was not large enough
13. Recycle
The $2 penalty contingency was
ineffective
Increased penalty to match the
cost of the meal
If meal was $6, penalty was to pay
performance manager $6
(Including
performance
management)
14. My Results
I found the recycle phase to be more
effective
Paying my performance manager the
amount that matches the price of the
meal was more aversive than the simple
$2
15. My Comments
Between you and me, I will not continue
this project any longer.
It was nice being able to save money by
limiting myself to one restaurant-meal a
week.
BUT, it was so annoying.
Especially when I would not finish
homework until later in the evening and
was too tired to cook.