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.     

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).     

Variable shock-free times with informative and uniformative stimuli

Three rats were trained on a fixed-ratio escape procedure in which responding produced one of two equiprobable outcomes—a 10-second or 60-second shock-free period. Before the fixed-ratio requirement was satisfied, brief shocks were presented at irregular intervals averaging either 15 or 30 seconds. Two conditions, differing in the relationship between exteroceptive stimuli and the outcomes, were studied. In the uninformative (uncorrelated) condition, the same stimulus was presented during both outcomes. In the informative (correlated) condition, one stimulus was present during the 10-second outcome only; another stimulus was present during the 60-second outcome only. Subjects pressed faster in the uninformative condition than they did in the informative condition. The inadequacy of the information hypothesis in accounting for the findings is discussed, and an alternative hypothesis is offered.     

A comparison of accumulated and distributed reinforcement periods with children exhibiting escape-maintained problem behavior

Differential reinforcement is a common treatment for escape-maintained problem behavior in which compliance is reinforced on a fixed-ratio (FR) 1 schedule with brief access to positive and/or negative reinforcement. Recent research suggests some individuals prefer to complete longer work requirements culminating in prolonged (i.e. accumulated) reinforcement periods relative to brief (i.e. distributed) periods, but prolonged work exposure may evoke problem behavior and prevent compliance from contacting reinforcement when treating escape-maintained problem behavior. We exposed 3 children with escape-maintained problem behavior to both distributed (FR 1 resulting in 30 s of reinforcement) and accumulated (FR 15 resulting in 7.5 min of reinforcement) arrangements to compare their efficacy in maintaining low levels of problem behavior. We then assessed participants' preferences for these conditions in a concurrent-chains arrangement. Accumulated-reinforcement arrangements did not occasion additional problem behavior, but rather resulted in consistently lower levels of problem behavior for 2 of 3 participants. Participants demonstrated idiosyncratic preferences.     

Conditioned reinforcement and choice with delayed and uncertain primary reinforcers.

In an adjusting-delay choice procedure, pigeons could peck on either a red key or a green key. A peck on the red key always led to a delay associated with red houselights and then food. The delay was adjusted over trials to estimate an indifference point--a delay at which the two keys were chosen about equally often. In some conditions, a peck on the green key led to food on all trials after delays of either 10 s or 30 s, and green houselights were lit during the delays. In other conditions, food was presented on only half of the green-key trials. If the green houselights continued to occur on both reinforcement and nonreinforcement trials, preference for the green key always decreased. Preference for the green key also decreased if half of the trials had 30-s houselights followed by food and the other half had no green houselights and no food. However, preference for the green key actually increased if half of the trials had 10-s green houselights followed by food and the other half had no green houselights followed by no food. The latter condition therefore demonstrated a case in which preference for an alternative increased when food was removed from half of the trials. The results suggest that the red and green houselights served as conditioned reinforcers. A hyperbolic decay model (Mazur, 1989) provided good predictions for all conditions by assuming that the strength of a conditioned reinforcer is inversely related to the total time spent in its presence before food is delivered.     

A comparison of ratio and interval reinforcement schedules with comparable interreinforcement times

Pigeons were trained to peck keys on fixed-ratio and fixed-interval schedules of food reinforcement. Both schedules produced a pattern of behavior characterized as pause and run, but the relation of pausing to time between reinforcers differed for the two schedules even when mean time between reinforcers was the same. Pausing in the fixed ratio occupied less of the time between reinforcers for shorter interreinforcer times. For two of three birds, the relation was reversed at longer interreinforcer times. As an interreinforcer time elapsed, there was an increasing tendency to return to responding for the fixed interval, but a roughly constant tendency to return to responding for the fixed-ratio schedule. In Experiment 1 these observations were made for both single-reinforcement schedules and multiple schedules of fixed-ratio and fixed-interval reinforcement. In Experiment 2 the observations were extended to a comparison of fixed-ratio versus variable-interval reinforcement schedules, where the distribution of interreinforcement times in the variable interval approximated that for the fixed ratio.     

Reinforcement schedule thinning following treatment with functional communication training

We evaluated four methods for increasing the practicality of functional communication training (FCT) by decreasing the frequency of reinforcement for alternative behavior. Three participants whose problem behaviors were maintained by positive reinforcement were treated successfully with FCT in which reinforcement for alternative behavior was initially delivered on fixed-ratio (FR) 1 schedules. One participant was then exposed to increasing delays to reinforcement under FR 1, a graduated fixed-interval (FI) schedule, and a graduated multiple-schedule arrangement in which signaled periods of reinforcement and extinction were alternated. Results showed that (a) increasing delays resulted in extinction of the alternative behavior, (b) the FI schedule produced undesirably high rates of the alternative behavior, and (c) the multiple schedule resulted in moderate and stable levels of the alternative behavior as the duration of the extinction component was increased. The other 2 participants were exposed to graduated mixed-schedule (unsignaled alternation between reinforcement and extinction components) and multiple-schedule (signaled alternation between reinforcement and extinction components) arrangements in which the durations of the reinforcement and extinction components were modified. Results obtained for these 2 participants indicated that the use of discriminative stimuli in the multiple schedule facilitated reinforcement schedule thinning. Upon completion of treatment, problem behavior remained low (or at zero), whereas alternative behavior was maintained as well as differentiated during a multiple-schedule arrangement consisting of a 4-min extinction period followed by a 1-min reinforcement period.     

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.     

Reinforcing variability in adolescents with autism

Five adolescents with autism, 5 adult control participants, and 4 child controls received rewards for varying their sequences of responses while playing a computer game. In preceding and following phases, rewards were provided at approximately the same rate but were independent of variability. The most important finding was that, when reinforced, variability increased significantly in all groups. Reinforced variability could provide the necessary behavioral substrate for individuals with autism to learn new responses.     

Incentivizing physical activity using token reinforcement with preschool children

We combined several single‐subject designs to assess the effects of contingent and noncontingent token reinforcement on moderate‐to‐vigorous physical activity (MVPA) exhibited by 4 preschool‐aged children. Higher overall levels and longer bouts of MVPA reliably occurred when tokens were delivered contingent on MVPA for 3 of the 4 children when compared to baseline (no token) and for 2 of the 4 children when compared to noncontingent‐token conditions. The present study demonstrated that the delivery of tokens contingent on MVPA can increase and maintain MVPA exhibited by preschool‐aged children, resulting in more MVPA than in baseline conditions and conditions in which tokens are awarded without respect to MVPA. These results demonstrate that token economies can be used to increase MVPA and they add to the evidence base supporting the use of token economies to address a range of behavior problems.     

Choice with delayed and probabilistic reinforcers: effects of variability, time between trials, and conditioned reinforcers.

In a discrete-trials procedure with pigeons, a response on a green key led to a 4-s delay (during which green houselights were lit) and then a reinforcer might or might not be delivered. A response on a red key led to a delay of adjustable duration (during which red houselights were lit) and then a certain reinforcer. The delay was adjusted so as to estimate an indifference point--a duration for which the two alternatives were equally preferred. Once the green key was chosen, a subject had to continue to respond on the green key until a reinforcer was delivered. Each response on the green key, plus the 4-s delay that followed every response, was called one "link" of the green-key schedule. Subjects showed much greater preference for the green key when the number of links before reinforcement was variable (averaging four) than when it was fixed (always exactly four). These findings are consistent with the view that probabilistic reinforcers are analogous to reinforcers delivered after variable delays. When successive links were separated by 4-s or 8-s "interlink intervals" with white houselights, preference for the probabilistic alternative decreased somewhat for 2 subjects but was unaffected for the other 2 subjects. When the interlink intervals had the same green houselights that were present during the 4-s delays, preference for the green key decreased substantially for all subjects. These results provided mixed support for the view that preference for a probabilistic reinforcer is inversely related to the duration of conditioned reinforcers that precede the delivery of food.     

Exclusive preference develops less readily on concurrent ratio schedules with wheel-running than with sucrose reinforcement

Previous research suggested that allocation of responses on concurrent schedules of wheel‐running reinforcement was less sensitive to schedule differences than typically observed with more conventional reinforcers. To assess this possibility, 16 female Long Evans rats were exposed to concurrent FR FR schedules of reinforcement and the schedule value on one alternative was systematically increased. In one condition, the reinforcer on both alternatives was .1 ml of 7.5% sucrose solution; in the other, it was a 30‐s opportunity to run in a wheel. Results showed that the average ratio at which greater than 90% of responses were allocated to the unchanged alternative was higher with wheel‐running reinforcement. As the ratio requirement was initially increased, responding strongly shifted toward the unchanged alternative with sucrose, but not with wheel running. Instead, responding initially increased on both alternatives, then subsequently shifted toward the unchanged alternative. Furthermore, changeover responses as a percentage of total responses decreased with sucrose, but not wheel‐running reinforcement. Finally, for some animals, responding on the increasing ratio alternative decreased as the ratio requirement increased, but then stopped and did not decline with further increments. The implications of these results for theories of choice are discussed.     

Estimation of indifference points with an adjusting-delay procedure.

In a series of conditions, pigeons chose between 1.5 s and 3 s of access to grain, each preceded by some delay. The delay that preceded the small reinforcer was constant throughout a condition. The delay that preceded the large reinforcer was increased or decreased a number of times each session in order to estimate an "indifference point," a delay at which the subject chose each alternative about equally often. The experiment was designed to determine whether variations in any of four features of this adjusting-delay procedure would systematically alter the estimated indifference points. The four features were the total trial duration, the number of center-key responses necessary to begin a trial, the number of choice trials that preceded each change in the adjusting delay, and step size--the size of each increment and decrement in the delay. Manipulation of the first three features had no systematic effects on the indifference points. As step size was increased from 0.5 s to 6 s, within-session variability of the adjusting delay steadily increased, and the 6-s step size produced larger indifference-point estimates for some subjects. The results suggest that, within certain limits, these procedural features can be altered without affecting the indifference-point estimates, but that the use of a large step size can distort the estimates. Some theoretical implications of the relative constancy of indifference points across these procedural variations are discussed.     

Effects of primary reinforcement on pigeons' initial-link responding under a concurrent chains schedule with nondifferntial terminal links

The effect of primary reinforcement on initial-link responding under concurrent-chains schedules with nondifferential terminal links was assessed in 12 pigeons. The iniitial and terminal links were variable-interval schedules (always the same for both alternatives). The positions (left or right key) of the initial-link stimuli (red or green) were randomized while the correlation between color and food amount remained constant within each condition. The terminal-link stimuli were always presented on the center key. Except in two control groups and conditions, the terminal-link stimuli were the same color (nondifferential, blue or yellow). Over six conditions, the differences in food amont and the durations of the initial- and terminal-link schedules were manipulated. In 57 of 60 cases, birds generated choice proportions above .50 in favor of the initial-link stimlus that was correlated with the larger reinforcer. There was some indication that preference increased with shortened terminal-link durations. Because the terminal-link stimuli were nondifferential, differential responding in the initial links cannot be explained easily by conditioned reinforcement represented by the terminal-link stimuli. Thus, primiary reinforcement has a direct effect on initial-link responding in concurrent-chains schedules.     

Preferences for and against stimuli paired with food.

Pigeons were presented with a concurrent-chains schedule in which terminal-link entries were assigned to two response keys on a percentage basis. The terminal links were fixed delays that sometimes ended with food and sometimes did not. In most conditions, 80% of the terminal links were assigned to one key, but a smaller percentage of the terminal links ended with food for this key, so the number of food reinforcers delivered by the two alternatives was equal. When the same terminal-link stimuli (orange houselights) were used for both alternatives, the pigeons showed a preference for whichever alternative delivered more frequent terminal links. When different terminal-link stimuli (green vs. red houselights) were used for the two alternatives, the pigeons showed a preference for whichever alternative delivered fewer terminal links when terminal-link durations were long, and no systematic preferences when terminal-link durations were short. This pattern of results was consistent with the predictions of Grace's (1994) contextual choice model. Preference for the alternative that delivered more frequent terminal links was usually stronger in the first few sessions of a condition than at the end of a condition, suggesting that the conditioned reinforcing effect of the additional terminal-link presentation was, in part, transitory.     

The effect of response interruption and redirection with and without a differential reinforcement of alternative behavior component on stereotypy and appropriate responses

Individuals with an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) often engage in repetitive and stereotypic behaviors (American Psychological Association, 2013). Therefore, interventions that reduce stereotypy and potentially increase appropriate responses are of interest in the field of applied behavior analysis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the isolated and additive effects of response interruption and redirection (RIRD) and differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) on both stereotypy and appropriate responses to determine whether either of these interventions alone or in combination is more effective and more efficient in increasing appropriate responses and decreasing stereotypy. Results showed that both RIRD and RIRD + DRA were effective interventions in decreasing stereotypy, but no procedure resulted in a sustained increase in appropriate responses.     

Frequency versus magnitude of reinforcement: New data with a different procedure

Two pigeons, with previous exposure to concurrent schedules, were submitted to 29 sessions of 8 hours each with concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules in which reinforcement parameters changed from session to session. In the first nine sessions reinforcement durations were equal in both schedules while reinforcement frequencies varied; in Sessions 10 through 18, both frequency and duration of reinforcement were varied; in Sessions 19 through 29, only reinforcement duration was varied. Results with this different procedure confirm previous findings that behavior is more sensitive to changes in reinforcement frequency than to reinforcement magnitude.     

Choice with certain and uncertain reinforcers in an adjusting-delay procedure.

A discrete-trials adjusting-delay procedure was used to investigate the conditions under which pigeons might show a preference for partial reinforcement over 100% reinforcement, an effect reported in a number of previous experiments. A peck on a red key always led to a delay with red houselights and then food. In each condition, the duration of the red-houselight delay was adjusted to estimate an indifference point. In 100% reinforcement conditions, a peck on a green key always led to a delay with green houselights and then food. In partial-reinforcement conditions, a peck on the green key led either to the green houselights and food or to white houselights and no food. In some phases of the experiment, statistically significant preference for partial reinforcement over 100% reinforcement was found, but this effect was observed in only about half of the pigeons. The effect was largely eliminated when variability in the delay stimulus colors was equated for 50% reinforcement conditions and 100% reinforcement conditions. Idiosyncratic preferences for certain colors or for stimulus variability may be at least partially responsible for the effect.     

The distinction between positive and negative reinforcement: use with care

It is customary in behavior analysis to distinguish between positive and negative reinforcement in terms of whether the reinforcing event involves onset or offset of a stimulus. In a previous article (Baron & Galizio, 2005), we concluded that a distinction of these terms is not only ambiguous but has little if any functional significance. Here, we respond to commentaries by a group of distinguished behavior analysts about the issues we raised. Although several of the commentators argued for preservation of the distinction, we remain unconvinced that its benefits outweigh its weaknesses. Because this distinction is so deeply embedded in the language of behavior analysis, we hardly expect that it will be abandoned. However, we hope that the terms positive and negative reinforcement will be used with circumspection and with full knowledge of the confusion they can engender.     

NEGATIVE SIDE EFFECTS OF NONCONTINGENT REINFORCEMENT

Noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) has emerged as a treatment package for severe behavior problems. Although concerns about potential side effects (such as incidental reinforcement) have been raised, there have been few reported negative side effects in published studies to date. In this article, we report an NCR treatment evaluation for severe aggression that produced (a) an extinction burst and (b) incidental reinforcement. These side effects were evaluated by examining within-session response patterns and response distributions. As a solution, a brief omission contingency was added to the reinforcement schedule. The omission contingency resulted in decreased aggression rates.