Effects of signaled and unsignaled alternative reinforcement on persistence and relapse in children and pigeons

Three experiments explored the impact of different reinforcer rates for alternative behavior (DRA) on the suppression and post‐DRA relapse of target behavior, and the persistence of alternative behavior. All experiments arranged baseline, intervention with extinction of target behavior concurrently with DRA, and post‐treatment tests of resurgence or reinstatement, in two‐ or three‐component multiple schedules. Experiment 1, with pigeons, arranged high or low baseline reinforcer rates; both rich and lean DRA schedules reduced target behavior to low levels. When DRA was discontinued, the magnitude of relapse depended on both baseline reinforcer rate and the rate of DRA. Experiment 2, with children exhibiting problem behaviors, arranged an intermediate baseline reinforcer rate and rich or lean signaled DRA. During treatment, both rich and lean DRA rapidly reduced problem behavior to low levels, but post‐treatment relapse was generally greater in the DRA‐rich than the DRA‐lean component. Experiment 3, with pigeons, repeated the low‐baseline condition of Experiment 1 with signaled DRA as in Experiment 2. Target behavior decreased to intermediate levels in both DRA‐rich and DRA‐lean components. Relapse, when it occurred, was directly related to DRA reinforcer rate as in Experiment 2. The post‐treatment persistence of alternative behavior was greater in the DRA‐rich component in Experiment 1, whereas it was the same or greater in the signaled‐DRA‐lean component in Experiments 2 and 3. Thus, infrequent signaled DRA may be optimal for effective clinical treatment.     

Signaled alternative reinforcement and the persistence of operant behavior

Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) is a treatment designed to eliminate problem behavior by reinforcing an alternative behavior at a higher rate. Availability of alternative reinforcement may be signaled, as with Functional Communication Training, or unsignaled. Whether or not alternative reinforcement is signaled could influence both the rate and persistence of problem behavior. The present study investigated whether signaling the availability of alternative reinforcement affects the rate and persistence of a concurrently available target response with pigeons. Three components of a multiple concurrent schedule arranged equal reinforcement rates for target responding. Two of the components also arranged equal reinforcement rates for an alternative response. In one DRA component, a discrete stimulus signaled the availability of response‐contingent alternative reinforcement by changing the keylight color upon reinforcement availability. In the other DRA component, availability of alternative reinforcement was not signaled. Target responding was most persistent in the unsignaled DRA component when disrupted by satiation, free food presented between components, and extinction, relative to the signaled DRA and control components. These findings suggest the discrete stimulus functionally separated the availability of alternative reinforcement from the discriminative stimuli governing target responding. These findings provide a novel avenue to explore in translational research assessing whether signaling the availability of alternative reinforcement with DRA treatments reduces the persistence of problem behavior.     

Noncontingent reinforcement without extinction plus differential reinforcement of alternative behavior during treatment of problem behavior

The effects of noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) without extinction during treatment of problem behavior maintained by social positive reinforcement were evaluated for five individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. A continuous NCR schedule was gradually thinned to a fixed‐time 5‐min schedule. If problem behavior increased during NCR schedule thinning, a continuous NCR schedule was reinstated and NCR schedule thinning was repeated with differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) included. Results showed an immediate decrease in all participants’ problem behavior during continuous NCR, and problem behavior maintained at low levels during NCR schedule thinning for three participants. Problem behavior increased and maintained at higher rates during NCR schedule thinning for two other participants; however, the addition of DRA to the intervention resulted in decreased problem behavior and increased mands.     

Competition between noncontingent and contingent reinforcement schedules during response acquisition

We examined the extent to which noncontingent reinforcement (NCR), when used as treatment to reduce problem behavior, might interfere with differential reinforcement contingencies designed to strengthen alternative behavior. After conducting a functional analysis to identify the reinforcers maintaining 2 participants' self-injurious behavior (SIB), we delivered those reinforcers under dense NCR schedules. We delivered the same reinforcers concurrently under differential-reinforcement-of-alternative-behavior (DRA) contingencies in an attempt to strengthen replacement behaviors (mands). Results showed that the NCR plus DRA intervention was associated with a decrease in SIB but little or no increase in appropriate mands. In a subsequent phase, when the NCR schedule was thinned while the DRA schedule remained unchanged, SIB remained low and mands increased. These results suggest that dense NCR schedules may alter establishing operations that result in not only suppression of problem behavior but also interference with the acquisition of appropriate behavior. Thus, the strengthening of socially appropriate behaviors as replacements for problem behavior during NCR interventions might best be achieved if the NCR schedule is first thinned.     

Utilizing a home‐based parent training approach in the treatment of food selectivity

Evaluating effects of utilizing parents as therapists for treating behavior problems has become increasingly important in the dissemination and practice of applied behavior analysis. However, home‐based parent training approaches have been underused in treating feeding problems. In this study, mothers were trained to implement differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) combined with non‐removal of the spoon and demand fading for the treatment of their childrens' food selectivity. The procedures were highly effective and generalization to untargeted foods was observed. Parent procedural integrity and parent collected interobserver agreement (IOA) data remain high throughout the study. This study also demonstrated an effective method for systematically decreasing reinforcement magnitude and schedules in an effort to mimic traditional reinforcer delivery such as intermittently providing a dessert at the end of the meal. Finally, this study successfully increased a demand fading ratio of 50–150% without noticeable side effects. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Differential reinforcement with and without instructional fading

We evaluated a differential-reinforcement-based treatment package for the reduction of problem behavior during instructional situations. Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA; compliance) was implemented across two conditions. During one condition, instructions were presented approximately once every other minute. This condition was considered the terminal goal for treatment. During the second condition, the rate of instructions was gradually increased (beginning at zero and ending when instruction rate was similar to the first condition). Results indicated that DRA with instructional fading resulted in less problem behavior than DRA without instructional fading. These results are similar to previous studies regarding the utility of instructional fading.     

Additional free reinforcers increase persistence of problem behavior in a clinical context: A partial replication of laboratory findings

Behavioral momentum theory is a quantitative framework used to characterize the persistence of behavior during response disruptors as a function of baseline stimulus–reinforcer relations. Results of several investigations have shown that alternative reinforcement can increase the resistance to change of a target response during extinction. In the present study, concomitant variable‐interval fixed‐time schedules of reinforcement for problem behavior were employed to simulate naturalistic situations involving the superimposition of response‐independent reinforcers on a baseline schedule of reinforcement for problem behavior, as in the common use of noncontingent reinforcement treatments. Resistance to change of problem behavior was assessed during postsession periods of extinction by comparing response rates in extinction following sessions with and without additional reinforcer deliveries arranged by fixed‐time schedules. For 2 out of 3 participants, problem behavior tended to be more resistant to extinction following periods in which additional fixed‐time reinforcers were delivered. These results are discussed in terms of potential effects of noncontingent reinforcement on problem behavior when the intervention is discontinued or implemented without good treatment integrity.     

Delivering alternative reinforcement in a distinct context reduces its counter‐therapeutic effects on relapse

Delivery of alternative reinforcers in the presence of stimuli previously associated with reinforcement for target behavior increases the susceptibility of target behavior to relapse. To explore contingencies that might mitigate this counter‐therapeutic effect, we trained pigeons on a procedure that entailed extinction of previously reinforced target‐key pecking, access to a distinct stimulus context contingently on refraining from target behavior (differential‐reinforcement‐of‐other‐behavior; DRO), and reinforcement of alternative‐key pecks (differential‐reinforcement of alternative behavior; DRA) in that context. This DRO‐DRA treatment was compared with standard DRA in successive conditions, counterbalanced across pigeons. Target behavior extinguished more rapidly in the Standard‐DRA condition. When alternative reinforcement was discontinued, however, there was less resurgence after DRO‐DRA than after Standard DRA. In a third condition, the DRO contingency was suspended so that the former DRA stimuli were not presented (DRO‐NAC), and resurgence was greater than in the Standard‐DRA and DRO‐DRA conditions. Reinstatement produced by response‐independent reinforcers was small and similar across conditions. Subsequent reacquisition of target‐key pecking under baseline reinforcement conditions was faster following DRO‐NAC than Standard‐DRA or DRO‐DRA. These findings suggest that DRO‐DRA might serve as a useful method in clinical settings for reducing problem behavior while minimizing the threat of posttreatment relapse.     

Manipulating parameters of reinforcement to reduce problem behavior without extinction

Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) most often includes extinction as a treatment component. However, extinction is not always feasible and it can be counter‐therapeutic if implemented without optimal treatment integrity. Researchers have successfully implemented DRA without extinction by manipulating various parameters of reinforcement such that alternative behavior is favored. We extended previous research by assessing three participants' sensitivities to quality, magnitude, and immediacy using arbitrary responses and reinforcers that maintain problem behavior. The results were used to implement an intervention for problem behavior using DRA without extinction. Our findings indicate that arbitrary responses can be used to identify individual and relative sensitivity to parameters of reinforcement for reinforcers that maintain problem behavior. Treatment was effective for all participants when we manipulated parameters of reinforcement to which they were most sensitive, and, for two participants, the treatment was less effective when we manipulated parameters to which they were least sensitive.     

Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior increases resistance to extinction: clinical demonstration, animal modeling, and clinical test of one solution

Basic research with pigeons on behavioral momentum suggests that differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) can increase the resistance of target behavior to change. This finding suggests that clinical applications of DRA may inadvertently increase the persistence of target behavior even as it decreases its frequency. We conducted three coordinated experiments to test whether DRA has persistence-strengthening effects on clinically significant target behavior and then tested the effectiveness of a possible solution to this problem in both a nonhuman and clinical study. Experiment 1 compared resistance to extinction following baseline rates of reinforcement versus higher DRA rates of reinforcement in a clinical study. Resistance to extinction was substantially greater following DRA. Experiment 2 tested a rat model of a possible solution to this problem. Training an alternative response in a context without reinforcement of the target response circumvented the persistence-strengthening effects of DRA. Experiment 3 translated the rat model into a novel clinical application of DRA. Training an alternative response with DRA in a separate context resulted in lower resistance to extinction than employing DRA in the context correlated with reinforcement of target behavior. The value of coordinated bidirectional translational research is discussed.     

An evaluation of a punisher assessment for decreasing automatically reinforced problem behavior

We extended research on the identification and evaluation of potential punishers for decreasing automatically reinforced problem behavior in four individuals with autism spectrum disorder. A punisher selection interview was conducted with lead clinicians to identify socially acceptable punishers. During the treatment evaluation, treatment phases were introduced sequentially and included noncontingent reinforcement (NCR), NCR and differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA), and NCR‐and‐DRA with punishment. During the NCR‐and‐DRA with punishment phase, four to five potential punishers were evaluated using a multielement design. Dependent measures included the target problem behavior, appropriate item engagement, and emotional responding. For all participants, NCR‐and‐DRA was not effective and punishment was necessary. However, the most effective punisher identified in the context of NCR‐and‐DRA differed across participants.     

The role of adventitious reinforcement during differential reinforcement of other behavior: A systematic replication

Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) is commonly used to decrease problem behavior by presenting reinforcers contingent upon the absence of a target response. Although it is well demonstrated that DROs decrease response rates, the processes producing these decreases are not well understood. The present study systematically replicated previous research assessing whether adventitious reinforcement of alternative behavior contributes to the effectiveness of DRO. We presented university students with two options on a computer and reinforced target responding on a variable-ratio schedule. Next, we compared decreases in target-response rates and any increases in alternative responding during DRO schedules versus yoked variable-time schedules or extinction probes. DRO schedules resulted in the lowest target-response rate and highest alternative-response rate. These findings generally provide some support for the adventitious reinforcement of “other” behavior.     

DO CHILDREN PREFER CONTINGENCIES? AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFICACY OF AND PREFERENCE FOR CONTINGENT VERSUS NONCONTINGENT SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT DURING PLAY

Discovering whether children prefer reinforcement via a contingency or independent of their behavior is important considering the ubiquity of these programmed schedules of reinforcement. The current study evaluated the efficacy of and preference for social interaction within differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) and noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) schedules with typically developing children. Results showed that 7 of the 8 children preferred the DRA schedule; 1 child was indifferent. We also demonstrated a high degree of procedural fidelity, which suggested that preference is influenced by the presence of a contingency under which reinforcement can be obtained. These findings are discussed in terms of (a) the selection of reinforcement schedules in practice, (b) variables that influence children's preferences for contexts, and (c) the selection of experimental control procedures when evaluating the effects of reinforcement.     

EFFECTS OF TREATMENT INTEGRITY FAILURES DURING DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT OF ALTERNATIVE BEHAVIOR: A TRANSLATIONAL MODEL

Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) is used frequently as a treatment for problem behavior. Previous studies on treatment integrity failures during DRA suggest that the intervention is robust, but research has not yet investigated the effects of different types of integrity failures. We examined the effects of two types of integrity failures on DRA, starting with a human operant procedure and extending the results to children with disabilities in a school setting. Human operant results (Experiment 1) showed that conditions involving reinforcement for problem behavior were more detrimental than failing to reinforce appropriate behavior alone, and that condition order affected the results. Experiments 2 and 3 replicated the effects of combined errors and sequence effects during actual treatment implementation.     

Prevention of the development of problem behavior: A laboratory model

Few studies have isolated the preventive efficacy of common behavioral strategies like noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) and differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA). The purpose of the current study was to develop and evaluate a laboratory model of these two problem behavior prevention strategies. Undergraduate students participated in a computer simulation, in which clicks to a designated area of the computer screen were analogous to the emergence of problem behavior. The responding of participants in a control group, who experienced a percentile schedule used to mimic the shaping of problem behavior, was compared to that of participants in two experimental groups, each with a history of either DRA or NCR. Between‐subjects group comparisons showed that both intervention strategies were equally effective in the prevention of our analog to problem behavior when compared to the control group. The strengths and limitations of a laboratory model for prevention are discussed in light of recent applied work in this area.     

A comparison of dense-to-lean and fixed lean schedules of alternative reinforcement and extinction

Behavior-reduction interventions typically employ dense schedules of alternative reinforcement in conjunction with operant extinction for problem behavior. After problem behavior is reduced in the initial treatment stages, schedule thinning is routinely conducted to make the intervention more practical in natural environments. In the current investigation, two methods for thinning alternative reinforcement schedules were compared for 3 clients who exhibited severe problem behavior. In the dense-to-lean (DTL) condition, reinforcement was delivered on relatively dense schedules (using noncontingent reinforcement for 1 participant and functional communication training for 2 participants), followed by systematic schedule thinning to progressively leaner schedules. During the fixed lean (FL) condition, reinforcement was delivered on lean schedules (equivalent to the terminal schedule of the DTL condition). The FL condition produced a quicker attainment of individual treatment goals for 2 of the 3 participants. The results are discussed in terms of the potential utility of using relatively lean schedules at treatment outset.     

An alternative method of thinning reinforcer delivery during differential reinforcement

Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) may result in rates of reinforcement that are impractical for caregivers to implement; therefore, recent research has examined methods for thinning reinforcer delivery during DRA. In this study, reinforcer delivery was thinned during DRA by restricting access to the participant's alternative response materials.     

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.     

A translational evaluation of transitions

Transitions with nonhuman animals are typically framed as inescapable changes in signaled reinforcement schedules that result in a pause in responding unique to switches from rich to lean schedules. Pausing is considered to be a function of the aversive qualities of the contrasting reinforcement schedules. Transitions are typically framed in applied research as physical changes in location that evoke problem behavior maintained by the escape of an aversive event or resumption of a preferred event. We attempted to extend the basic framing of transitions to behaviors and contexts of social significance and evaluate a novel treatment for the problem of dawdling by 3 boys who had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder during rich‐to‐lean transitions. Dawdling during physical transitions was most readily observed when transitioning to lean contexts in Experiment 1. We then shortened transition duration in Experiment 2 by programming unsignaled and probabilistic rich reinforcement in the upcoming context.     

EFFECTS OF PROBLEM DIFFICULTY AND REINFORCER QUALITY ON TIME ALLOCATED TO CONCURRENT ARITHMETIC PROBLEMS

Students with learning difficulties participated in two studies that analyzed the effects of problem difficulty and reinforcer quality upon time allocated to two sets of arithmetic problems reinforced according to a concurrent variable-interval 30-s variable-interval 120-s schedule. In Study 1, high- and low-difficulty arithmetic problems were systematically combined with rich and lean concurrent schedules (nickels used as reinforcers) across conditions using a single-subject design. The pairing of the high-difficulty problems with the richer schedule failed to offset time allocated to that alternative. Study 2 investigated the interactive effects of problem difficulty and reinforcer quality (nickels vs. program money) upon time allocation to arithmetic problems maintained by the concurrent schedules of reinforcement. Unlike problem difficulty, the pairing of the lesser quality reinforcer (program money) with the richer schedule reduced the time allocated to that alternative. The magnitude of this effect was greatest when combined with the low-difficulty problems. These studies have important implications for a matching law analysis of asymmetrical reinforcement variables that influence time allocation.