Further examination of factors that influence preference for positive versus negative reinforcement

Factors that influence choice between qualitatively different reinforcers (e.g., a food item or a break from work) are important to consider when arranging treatments for problem behavior. Previous findings indicate that children who engage in problem behavior maintained by escape from demands may choose a food item over the functional reinforcer during treatment (DeLeon, Neidert, Anders, & Rodriguez-Catter, 2001; Lalli et al., 1999). However, a number of variables may influence choice between concurrently available forms of reinforcement. An analogue for treatment situations in which positive reinforcement for compliance is in direct competition with negative reinforcement for problem behavior was used in the current study to evaluate several variables that may influence choice. Participants were 5 children who had been diagnosed with developmental disabilities and who engaged in problem behavior maintained by escape from demands. In the first phase, the effects of task preference and schedule of reinforcement on choice between a 30-s break and a high-preference food item were evaluated. The food item was preferred over the break, regardless of the preference level of the task or the reinforcement schedule, for all but 1 participant. In the second phase, the quality of the break was manipulated by combining escape with toys, attention, or both. Only 1 participant showed preference for the enriched break. In the third phase, choice of a medium- or low-preference food item versus the enriched break was evaluated. Three of 4 participants showed preference for the break over the less preferred food item. Results extend previous research by identifying some of the conditions under which individuals who engage in escape-maintained behavior will prefer a food reinforcer over the functional one.     

Unsignaled delay of reinforcement, relative time, and resistance to change

Two experiments with pigeons examined the effects of unsignaled, nonresetting delays of reinforcement on responding maintained by different reinforcement rates. In Experiment 1, 3-s unsignaled delays were introduced into each component of a multiple variable-interval (VI) 15-s VI 90-s VI 540-s schedule. When considered as a proportion of the preceding immediate reinforcement baseline, responding was decreased similarly for the three multiple-schedule components in both the first six and last six sessions of exposure to the delay. In addition, the relation between response rates and reinforcement rates was altered such that both parameters of the single-response version of the matching law (i.e., k and Re) were decreased. Experiment 2 examined the effects of unsignaled delays ranging from 0.5 s to 8.0 s on responding maintained by a multiple VI 20-s VI 120-s schedule of reinforcement. Response rates in both components increased with brief unsignaled delays and decreased with longer delays. As in Experiment 1, response rates as a proportion of baseline were affected similarly for the two components in both the first six and last six sessions of exposure to the delay. Unlike delays imposed between two stimulus events, the effects of delays between responses and reinforcers do not appear to be attenuated when the average time between reinforcers is longer. In addition, the disruptions produced by unsignaled delays appear to be inconsistent with the general finding that responding maintained by higher rates of reinforcement is less resistant to change.     

The effects of variable-time delivery of food items and praise on problem behavior reinforced by escape

Prior research indicates that reinforcement of an appropriate response (e.g., compliance) can produce concomitant reductions in problem behavior reinforced by escape when problem behavior continues to produce negative reinforcement (e.g., Lalli et al., 1999). These effects may be due to a preference for positive over negative reinforcement or to positive reinforcement acting as an abolishing operation, rendering demands less aversive and escape from demands less effective as negative reinforcement. In the current investigation, we delivered a preferred food item and praise on a variable-time 15-s schedule while providing escape for problem behavior on a fixed-ratio 1 schedule in a demand condition for 3 participants with problem behavior maintained by negative reinforcement. Results for all 3 participants showed that variable-time delivery of preferred edible items reduced problem behavior even though escape continued to be available for these responses. These findings are discussed in the context of motivating operations.     

Reinforcement magnitude and responding during treatment with differential reinforcement

Basic findings indicate that the amount or magnitude of reinforcement can influence free-operant responding prior to and during extinction. In this study, the relation between reinforcement magnitude and adaptive behavior was evaluated with 3 children as part of treatment with differential reinforcement. In the first experiment, a communicative response was shaped and maintained by the same reinforcer that was found to maintain problem behavior. Two reinforcement magnitudes (20-s or 60-s access to toys or escape from demands) were compared and found to be associated with similar levels of resistance to extinction. The relation between reinforcement magnitude and response maintenance was further evaluated in the second experiment by exposing the communicative response to 20-s or 300-s access to toys or escape. Results for 2 participants suggested that this factor may alter the duration of postreinforcement pauses.     

A preliminary analysis of adaptive responding under open and closed economies

In the current investigation, we evaluated the effects of open and closed economies on the adaptive behavior of 2 individuals with developmental disabilities. Across both types of economy, progressive-ratio (PR) schedules were used in which the number of responses required to obtain reinforcement increased as the session progressed. In closed-economy sessions, participants were able to obtain reinforcement only through interaction with the PR schedule requirements (i.e., more work resulted in more reinforcer access). In open-economy sessions, participants obtained reinforcers by responding on the PR schedule and were given supplemental (free) access to the reinforcers after completion of the session. In general, more responding was associated with the closed economy.     

EVALUATION OF CLIENT PREFERENCE FOR FUNCTION-BASED TREATMENT PACKAGES

Functional communication training (FCT) and noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) are commonly prescribed treatments that are based on the results of a functional analysis. Both treatments involve delivery of the reinforcer that is responsible for the maintenance of destructive behavior. One major difference between the two treatment procedures is that client responding determines reinforcement delivery with FCT (e.g., reinforcement of communication is delivered on a fixed-ratio 1 schedule) but not with NCR (e.g., reinforcement is delivered on a fixed-time 30-s schedule). In the current investigation, FCT and NCR were equally effective in reducing 2 participants' destructive behavior that was sensitive to attention as reinforcement. After the treatment analysis, the participants' relative preference for each treatment was evaluated using a modified concurrent-chains procedure. Both participants demonstrated a preference for the FCT procedure. The results are discussed in terms of treatment efficacy and preference for control over when reinforcement is delivered. In addition, a method is demonstrated in which clients with developmental disabilities can participate in selecting treatments that are designed to reduce their destructive behavior.     

Key pecking of pigeons under variable-interval schedules of briefly signaled delayed reinforcement: effects of variable-interval value.

Key pecking of 4 pigeons was maintained under a multiple variable-interval 20-s variable-interval 120-s schedule of food reinforcement. When rates of key pecking were stable, a 5-s unsignaled, nonresetting delay to reinforcement separated the first peck after an interval elapsed from reinforcement in both components. Rates of pecking decreased substantially in both components. When rates were stable, the situation was changed such that the peck that began the 5-s delay also changed the color of the keylight for 0.5 s (i.e., the delay was briefly signaled). Rates increased to near-immediate reinforcement levels. In subsequent conditions, delays of 10 and 20 s, still briefly signaled, were tested. Although rates of key pecking during the component with the variable-interval 120-s schedule did not change appreciably across conditions, rates during the variable-interval 20-s component decreased greatly in 1 pigeon at the 10-s delay and decreased in all pigeons at the 20-s delay. In a control condition, the variable-interval 20-s schedule with 20-s delays was changed to a variable-interval 35-s schedule with 5-s delays, thus equating nominal rates of reinforcement. Rates of pecking increased to baseline levels. Rates of pecking, then, depended on the value of the briefly signaled delay relative to the programmed interfood times, rather than on the absolute delay value. These results are discussed in terms of similar findings in the literature on conditioned reinforcement, delayed matching to sample, and classical conditioning.     

Preference for unreliable reinforcement in children with mental retardation: the role of conditioned reinforcement

We examined the effects of conditioned reinforcement on children's choice between reliable (100%) and unreliable (50%) reinforcement under various stimulus conditions in a concurrent-chains procedure. The study was conducted across three experiments. Experiments 1 and 2 were conducted under conditions similar to basic laboratory work and consisted of participants selecting from one of two black boxes (placed on a table) that were correlated with different reinforcement schedules. In Experiment 3, we assessed a participant's preference for unreliable reinforcement during conditions in which the target responses were aggression and mands. Results of the three experiments showed that the participants preferred unreliable reinforcement under certain conditions. Findings are discussed regarding the role of specific stimuli (i.e., items correlated with a reinforcement schedule, adult reactions) as conditioned reinforcers and how they may influence children's preference for a response (e.g., aggression, self-injury) that produces reinforcement on a leaner schedule than a socially desirable response (e.g., mands).     

The generality of selective observing

Four rats obtained food pellets by poking a key and 5-s presentations of the discriminative stimuli by pressing a lever. Every 1 or 2 min, the prevailing schedule of reinforcement for key poking alternated between rich (either variable-interval [VI] 30 s or VI 60 s) and lean (either VI 240 s, VI 480 s, or extinction) components. While the key was dark (mixed-schedule stimulus), no exteroceptive stimulus indicated the prevailing schedule. A lever press (i.e., an observing response), however, illuminated the key for 5 s with either a steady light (S+), signaling the rich reinforcement schedule, or a blinking light (S-), signaling the lean reinforcement schedule. One goal was to determine whether rats would engage in selective observing (i.e., a pattern of responding that maintains contact with S+ and decreases contact with S-). Such a pattern was found, in that a 5-s presentation of S+ was followed relatively quickly by another observing response (which likely produced another 5-s period of S+), whereas exposure to S- resulted in extended breaks from observing. Additional conditions demonstrated that the rate of observing remained high when lever presses were effective only when the rich reinforcement schedule was in effect (S+ only condition), but decreased to a low level when lever presses were effective only during the lean reinforcement component (S- only condition) or when lever presses had no effect (in removing the mixed stimulus or presenting the multiple-schedule stimuli). These findings are consistent with relativistic conceptualizations of conditioned reinforcement and extend the generality of selective observing to procedures in which the experimenter controls the duration of stimulus presentations, the schedule components both offer intermittent food reinforcement, and rats serve as subjects.     

THE USE OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT IN THE TREATMENT OF ESCAPE-MAINTAINED DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR

We identified 3 clients whose destructive behavior was sensitive to negative reinforcement (break from tasks) and positive reinforcement (access to tangible items, attention, or both). In an instructional context, we then evaluated the effects of reinforcing compliance with one, two, or all of these consequences (a break, tangible items, attention) when destructive behavior produced a break and when it did not (escape extinction). For 2 clients, destructive behavior decreased and compliance increased when compliance produced access to tangible items, even though destructive behavior resulted in a break. For 1 client, extinction was necessary to reduce destructive behavior and to increase compliance. Subsequently, when the schedule of reinforcement for compliance was faded for all clients, destructive behavior was lower and fading proceeded more rapidly when compliance produced multiple functional reinforcers (i.e., a break plus tangible items or attention) and destructive behavior was on extinction. The results are discussed in terms of the effects of relative reinforcement value and extinction on concurrent operants.     

Resurgence following differential reinforcement of alternative behavior implemented with and without extinction

In the clinic, differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) often involves programming extinction for destructive behavior while reinforcing an alternative form of communication (e.g., a functional communication response); however, implementing extinction can be unsafe or impractical under some circumstances. Quantitative theories of resurgence (i.e., Behavioral Momentum Theory and Resurgence as Choice) predict differences in the efficacy of treatments that do and do not involve extinction of target responding when reinforcement conditions maintaining alternative responding worsen. We tested these predictions by examining resurgence following two DRA conditions in which we equated rates of reinforcement. In DRA without extinction, target and alternative behavior produced reinforcement. In DRA with extinction plus noncontingent reinforcement, only alternative behavior produced reinforcement. We conducted this study in a reverse-translation sequence, first with participants who engaged in destructive behavior (Experiment 1) and then in a laboratory setting with rats (Experiment 2). Across both experiments, we observed proportionally lower levels of target responding during and following the DRA condition that arranged extinction for the target response. However, levels of resurgence were similar following both arrangements.     

Interoceptive fear conditioning as a learning model of panic disorder: an experimental evaluation using 20% CO(2)-enriched air in a non-clinical sample

Despite the role afforded interoceptive fear conditioning in etiologic accounts of panic disorder, there are no good experimental demonstrations of such learning in humans. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the interoceptive conditioning account using 20% carbon dioxide (CO(2))-enriched air as an interoceptive conditioned stimulus (CS) (i.e., physiologically inert 5-s exposures) and unconditioned stimulus (US) (i.e., physiologically prepotent 15-s exposures). Healthy participants (N=42) were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: a CS-only, contingent CS-US pairings, or unpaired/non-contingent CS and US presentations. Electrodermal and self-report (e.g., distress, fear) served as indices of conditioned emotional responding. Results showed greater magnitude electrodermal and evaluative fear conditioning in the paired relative to the CS-only condition. The explicitly unpaired condition showed even greater electrodermal and evaluative responding during acquisition, and marked resistance to extinction. The latter results are consistent with the possibility that the unpaired procedure constituted a partial reinforcement procedure in which CO(2) onset was paired with more extended CO(2) exposure on 50% of the trials. Overall, the findings are consistent with contemporary learning theory accounts of panic.     

On the relative contributions of positive reinforcement and escape extinction in the treatment of food refusal

We compared the effects of positive reinforcement alone, escape extinction alone, and positive reinforcement with escape extinction in the treatment of the food and fluid refusal of 4 children who had been diagnosed with a pediatric feeding disorder. Consumption did not increase when positive reinforcement was implemented alone. By contrast, consumption increased for all participants when escape extinction was implemented, independent of the presence or absence of positive reinforcement. However, the addition of positive reinforcement to escape extinction was associated with beneficial effects (e.g., greater decreases in negative vocalizations and inappropriate behavior) for some participants.     

Variable-ratio conditioning history produces high- and low-rate fixed-interval performance in rats

Four rats were exposed to an A-B-A-B series of 30 sessions each of variable-ratio 20 (A) and fixed-interval 30-s (B) schedules. Four other rats received 120 sessions of fixed-interval 30 s. The rats with a history of variable-ratio responding subsequently showed primarily high or low response-rate patterns on the fixed-interval schedule without evidence of classical scalloping (i.e., increased rates of responding throughout the interreinforcement interval), except infrequently in 1 rat. The rats exposed to only the fixed-interval 30-s schedule displayed the expected sequence of scalloping giving way to lower rate break-run or simply low-rate responding over time. This experiment shows that when naive rats are exposed to even a simple history of reinforcement (in this case, a variable-ratio 20), their subsequent fixed-interval performance is very different from comparable performance in naive rats, and might be said to be more similar to the responding of adult humans. The argument is made that care should be taken in comparing the fixed-interval performance of humans and nonhumans because humans have a complex history of reinforcement, whereas laboratory nonhumans are typically naive.     

Effects of reinforcement rate and delay on the acquisition of lever pressing by rats.

The acquisition of lever pressing by naive rats, in the absence of shaping, was studied as a function of different rates and unsignaled delays of reinforcement. Groups of 3 rats were each exposed to tandem schedules that differed in either the first or the second component. First-component schedules were either continuous reinforcement or random-interval 15, 30, 60 or 120 s; second-component schedules were fixed-time 0, 1, 3, 6, 12, or 24 s. Rate of responding was low under continuous immediate reinforcement and higher under random-interval 15 s. Random interval 30-s and 60-s schedules produced lower rates that were similar to each other. Random-interval 120 s controlled the lowest rate in the immediate-reinforcement condition. Adding a constant 12-s delay to each of the first-component schedule parameters controlled lower response rates that did not vary systematically with reinforcement rate. The continuous and random-interval 60-s schedules of immediate reinforcement controlled higher global and first-component response rates than did the same schedules combined with longer delays, and first-component rates showed some graded effects of delay duration. In addition, the same schedules controlled higher second-component response rates in combination with a 1-s delay than in combination with longer delays. These results were related to those from previous studies on acquisition with delayed reinforcement as well as to those from similar reinforcement procedures used during steady-state responding.     

Changeover behavior and preference in concurrent schedules

Pigeons were trained on a multiple schedule of reinforcement in which separate concurrent schedules occurred in each of two components. Key pecking was reinforced with milo. During one component, a variable-interval 40-s schedule was concurrent with a variable-interval 20-s schedule; during the other component, a variable-interval 40-s schedule was concurrent with a variable-interval 80-s schedule. During probe tests, the stimuli correlated with the two variable-interval 40-s schedules were presented simultaneously to assess preference, measured by the relative response rates to the two stimuli. In Experiment 1, the concurrently available variable-interval 20-s schedule operated normally; that is, reinforcer availability was not signaled. Following this baseline training, relative response rate during the probes favored the variable-interval 40-s alternative that had been paired with the lower valued schedule (i.e., with the variable-interval 80-s schedule). In Experiment 2, a signal for reinforcer availability was added to the high-value alternative (i.e., to the variable-interval 20-s schedule), thus reducing the rate of key pecking maintained by that schedule but leaving the reinforcement rate unchanged. Following that baseline training, relative response rates during probes favored the variable-interval 40-s alternative that had been paired with the higher valued schedule. The reversal in the pattern of preference implies that the pattern of changeover behavior established during training, and not reinforcement rate, determined the preference patterns obtained on the probe tests.     

Reinforcement of inhibition

A differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior (DRO) schedule with trials and delayed reinforcement was investigated. Periodically a wheel was briefly available to rats, followed six seconds later by brief availability of a bar. Variable-ratio food reinforcement of wheel turns was adjusted to give 95% turns. After variable-ratio-five reinforcement of bar presses produced 100% pressing, then separate ratio schedules were used for presses following turns (turn presses) and presses following nonturns (nonturn presses). Increasing nonturn-press reinforcements decreased turns, even though total reinforcements increased. Reversal by decreasing nonturn-press reinforcements raised turns, though with hysteresis. Thus food reinforcement increased nonturns even though delayed six to ten seconds after nonturns, a delay that greatly reduces response reinforcement. Those and other results indicate that the turn decrease was not due to reinforcement of competing responses. Evidence against other alternatives, and the reduction of responding by increased reinforcement, indicate that the term inhibition is appropriate for the phenomenon reinforced. Response-specific inhibition appears appropriate for this particular kind, since its effects are more specific to particular responses than Pavlovian conditioned-inhibition. Response-specific inhibition seems best considered a behavioral output comparable to responses (e.g., both reinforcible) but with important properties different from responses (e.g., different reinforcement-delay gradients).     

An assessment of differential reinforcement procedures for learners with autism spectrum disorder

Differential reinforcement procedures may promote unprompted correct responding, resulting in a quicker transfer of stimulus control than nondifferential reinforcement. Recent studies that have compared reinforcement arrangements have found that the most effective arrangement may differ across participants. The current study conducted an assessment of differential reinforcement arrangements (i.e., quality, schedule, and magnitude) and nondifferential reinforcement to identify the most effective arrangement for each participant. The assessment phase showed that the quality arrangement was the most efficient for all participants during auditory‐visual matching. Next, a validation phase was conducted to evaluate whether the assessment would predict the most effective arrangement across multiple skills. The results from the assessment phase were validated for all participants for the same skill. However, the results were only validated for one participant during the other skills (i.e., tact and intraverbal). The results are discussed in light of previous research and future areas of research.     

Noncontingent reinforcement competes with response performance

Noncontingent reinforcement is a commonly used procedure to decrease levels of problem behavior. Goals of this intervention are to decrease motivation, responding, and the functional relation between behavior and consequences, but it could also possibly compete with performance of alternative desirable responses. In the current study, we assessed the effects of noncontingent reinforcement arranged from 0% to 100% of sessions on performance of alternative responding across two experiments. Experiment 1 assessed manding (i.e., requests) maintained by attention and tangibles with a child with developmental disabilities and Experiment 2 assessed keypecking maintained by food with six pigeons. We extended previous research by (a) showing that noncontingent reinforcement competes with both the acquisition and maintenance (performance) of an alternative response, (b) extending the generality of the findings across nonhuman and human participants, and (c) eliminating influence of sequence effects through random manipulations of noncontingent value in pigeons. Overall, greater amounts of noncontingent reinforcement competed with both acquisition and maintenance of alternative responding.     

Use of a paired-stimulus demand analysis to evaluate demands for inclusion in functional analyses

Clinicians regularly use both indirect and direct assessments to identify preferred stimuli to include in control conditions and positive reinforcement test conditions in a functional analysis (FA). However, clinicians often rely on indirect assessment alone (e.g., caregiver report) to identify aversive stimuli to include in negative reinforcement test conditions. In this study, we evaluate a paired-stimulus demand analysis and validate assessment results via FA. Results indicate that, for all 4 participants, the demands selected least often evoked higher rates of destructive behavior than more frequently selected demands. We identified an escape function for all 4 participants in the escape–least selected (LS) condition (true positive finding) and for only 1 participant in the escape–most selected (MS) condition (false negative finding for 3 of 4 participants). These results support the utility of empirically deriving stimuli for inclusion in the negative reinforcement test condition of an FA to decrease the likelihood of false negative findings.