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.     

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).     

Noncontingent reinforcement, alternative reinforcement, and the matching law: a laboratory demonstration

Basic researchers, but not most applied researchers, have assumed that the behavior-decelerating effects of noncontingent reinforcement result at least partly from adventitious reinforcement of competing behaviors. The literature contains only sketchy evidence of these effects because few noncontingent reinforcement studies measure alternative behaviors. A laboratory model is presented in which concurrent schedules of contingent reinforcement were used to establish a "target" and an "alternative" behavior. Imposing noncontingent reinforcement decreased target behavior rates and increased alternative behavior rates, outcomes that were well described by the standard quantitative account of alternative reinforcement, the generalized matching law. These results suggest that adventitious reinforcement of alternative behaviors can occur during noncontingent reinforcement interventions, although the range of conditions under which this occurs remains to be determined in future studies. As an adjunct to applied studies, laboratory models permit easy measurement of alternative behaviors and parametric manipulations needed to answer many research questions.     

COMBINING NONCONTINGENT REINFORCEMENT AND DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULES AS TREATMENT FOR ABERRANT BEHAVIOR

Research has shown that noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) can be an effective behavior-reduction procedure when based on a functional analysis. The effects of NCR may be a result of elimination of the contingency between aberrant behavior and reinforcing consequences (extinction) or frequent and free access to reinforcers that may reduce the participant's motivation to engage in aberrant behaviors or mands. If motivation is momentarily reduced, behavior such as mands may not be sensitive to positive reinforcement. In this study, for 3 children with aberrant behavior maintained by tangible positive reinforcement, differential-reinforcement-of-alternative-behavior schedules were superimposed on NCR schedules to determine if mands could be strengthened. Results for the participants indicated that NCR did not preclude reinforcement of mands.     

Noncontingent and differential reinforcement in the treatment of pediatric feeding problems

We conducted functional analyses of the inappropriate mealtime behavior of 5 children diagnosed with feeding problems. Then, we compared the effects of differential and noncontingent reinforcement, and the relative effects of escape extinction with and without differential or noncontingent reinforcement, when escape extinction appeared necessary. Both reinforcement procedures were effective without escape extinction to treat food refusal for 1 child, but only differential reinforcement was effective without escape extinction to treat the child's liquid refusal. Escape extinction was necessary for 4 of 5 children. The addition of positive reinforcement resulted in beneficial effects (i.e., more stable acceptance, decreased inappropriate mealtime behavior or negative vocalizations) with 3 of 4 children. With escape extinction, differential reinforcement was more effective to treat food refusal for 2 children and noncontingent reinforcement was more effective for 1 child.     

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.     

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.     

Vicarious reinforcement: Expected and unexpected effects

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the effects on one child of observing another child receive direct social reinforcement. In the first part of the study, pairs of same-sex children worked on puzzles for three sessions spaced 2 to 3 days apart. One child was praised on a continuous schedule for performance, whereas the other received no praise. Although children who observed other children being praised increased their performance initially (as predicted by vicarious reinforcement and social comparison hypotheses), their performance decreased over time, reaching levels below their own baseline rates. In the second part of the study, intermittent praise delivered to the observing child was examined as a potential strategy to reverse the unexpected effects obtained in the first part of the study. Intermittent praise was found to be effective in reducing these effects and in producing enhanced performance. Individual data, as well as group data, are presented. Results are discussed in light of theoretical and applied issues related to the use of vicarious reinforcement in applied settings.     

Evaluating the separate and combined effects of positive and negative reinforcement on task compliance

Positive and negative reinforcement are effective for treating escape-maintained destructive behavior. The current study evaluated the separate and combined effects of these contingencies to increase task compliance. Results showed that a combination of positive and negative reinforcement was most effective for increasing compliance.     

A COMPARISON OF TWO PAIRING PROCEDURES TO ESTABLISH PRAISE AS A REINFORCER

Some individuals with intellectual disabilities do not respond to praise as a reinforcer, which may limit their ability to learn. We evaluated 2 procedures (stimulus pairing and response—stimulus pairing), both of which involved pairing previously neutral praise statements with preferred edible items, to determine their usefulness in establishing praise as a reinforcer. Results of Study 1 indicated that stimulus pairing was not effective in conditioning praise as a reinforcer for 3 of 4 subjects; results were inconclusive for the 4th subject. Results of Study 2 indicated that response—stimulus pairing was effective in conditioning praise as a reinforcer for 4 of 8 subjects. After conditioning, praise also increased the occurrence of additional target responses for these 4 subjects.     

A review of recent studies on differential reinforcement during skill acquisition in early intervention

Although the use of differential reinforcement has been recommended in previous investigations and in early intervention curriculum manuals, few studies have evaluated the best method for providing differential reinforcement to maximize independent responding. This paper reviews previous research on the effectiveness of differential reinforcement as treatment and describes important areas of future research.     

Applying the behavioral economics principle of unit price to DRO schedule thinning

Within the context of behavioral economics, the ratio of response requirements to reinforcer magnitude is called unit price. In this investigation, we yoked increases in reinforcer magnitude with increases in intervals of differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) to thin DRO intervals to a terminal value.     

The effects of noncontingent access to food on the rate of object mouthing across three settings

Object mouthing is associated with several potential deleterious side effects. In the current investigation, we modified the use of noncontingent access to competing items (food) and evaluated the effects of the treatment on object mouthing across three settings. Results demonstrated reductions in mouthing associated with the modified treatment.     

Observing behavior: effects of rate and magnitude of primary reinforcement

Four experiments examined the free-operant observing behavior of rats. In Experiment 1, observing was a bitonic function of random-ratio schedule requirements for the primary reinforcer. In Experiment 2, decreases in the magnitude of the primary reinforcer decreased observing. Experiment 3 examined observing when a random-ratio schedule or a yoked random-time schedule of primary reinforcement was in effect across conditions. Removing the response requirement for the primary reinforcer increased observing, suggesting that the effects of the random-ratio schedule in Experiment 1 likely were due to an interaction between observing and responding for the primary reinforcer. In Experiment 4, decreasing the rate of primary reinforcement by increasing the duration of a random-time schedule decreased observing monotonically. Overall, these results suggest that observing decreases with decreases in the rate or magnitude of the primary reinforcer, but that behavior related to the primary reinforcer can affect observing and potentially affect measurement of conditioned reinforcing value.     

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.     

ON THE EFFECTS OF NONCONTINGENT DELIVERY OF DIFFERING MAGNITUDES OF REINFORCEMENT

We conducted a parametric analysis of response suppression associated with different magnitudes of noncontingent reinforcement (NCR). Participants were 5 adults with severe or profound mental retardation who engaged in a manual response that was reinforced on variable-ratio schedules during baseline. Participants were then exposed to NCR via multielement and reversal designs. The fixed-time schedules were kept constant while the magnitude of the reinforcing stimulus was varied across three levels (low, medium, and high). Results showed that high-magnitude NCR schedules produced large and consistent reductions in response rates, medium-magnitude schedules produced less consistent and smaller reductions, and low-magnitude schedules produced little or no effect on responding. These results suggest that (a) NCR affects responding by altering an establishing operation (i.e., attenuating a deprivation state) rather than through extinction, and (b) magnitude of reinforcement is an important variable in determining the effectiveness of NCR.