Individual and combined effects of noncontingent reinforcement and response blocking on automatically reinforced problem behavior

Noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) and response blocking are 2 common interventions for problem behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement. We implemented NCR and blocking with 1 boy and found this combined intervention to be effective at decreasing high rates of automatically reinforced pica. With another child, we compared the effects of blocking alone to the combined intervention. With the third child, we compared NCR alone and blocking alone to the combined intervention. Results showed that the combined intervention was effective at reducing automatically reinforced problem behavior while moderate to high levels of item engagement maintained. When evaluated individually, neither NCR nor blocking was sufficient to reduce problem behavior to clinically significant levels.     

Some effects of noncontingent positive reinforcement on multiply controlled problem behavior and compliance in a demand context

Functional analysis suggested that the problem behavior of an 8-year-old girl with autism was maintained by escape from demands and access to edible items. Noncontingent delivery of an edible item was sufficient to increase compliance and reduce the rate of problem behavior without the use of escape extinction in a demand context. Leaner and richer schedules of noncontingent reinforcement were equally effective, and there were minimal differences between noncontingent reinforcement and differential reinforcement of compliance.     

The effects of differential negative reinforcement of other behavior and noncontingent escape on compliance

The present study evaluated the effects of noncontingent escape and differential negative reinforcement of other behavior in reducing problem behaviors and increasing compliance in 2 children with disabilities. Results showed that both methods reduced problem behavior and increased compliance for both children.     

Effects of noncontingent reinforcement on problem behavior and stimulus engagement: the role of satiation, extinction, and alternative reinforcement

This study examined the effects of noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) with and without extinction on problem behavior and stimulus engagement (consumption of reinforcement) of 4 participants. Reductions in problem behavior using NCR have frequently been attributed to both satiation of the reinforcer and extinction. In the current study, aspects of the NCR treatment effects were difficult to explain based solely on either a satiation or an extinction account. Specifically, it was found that stimulus engagement remained high throughout the NCR treatment analysis, and that problem behavior was reduced to near-zero levels during NCR without extinction. The implications of these findings are discussed with respect to the satiation and extinction hypotheses frequently described in the applied literature. Findings from basic studies examining the effects of response-independent schedules are presented, and are used as the basis for a matching theory account of NCR-related effects. It is proposed that reductions in problem behavior observed during NCR interventions may be a function of the availability of alternative sources of reinforcement.     

Noncontingent reinforcement for the treatment of severe problem behavior: An analysis of 27 consecutive applications

Noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) is a commonly used treatment for severe problem behavior displayed by individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The current study sought to extend the literature by reporting outcomes achieved with 27 consecutive applications of NCR as the primary treatment for severe problem behavior. All applications of NCR were included regardless of treatment outcome to minimize selection bias favoring successful cases. Participants ranged in age from 5 to 33 years. We analyzed the results across behavioral function and with regard to the use of functional versus alternative reinforcers. NCR effectively treated problem behavior maintained by social reinforcement in 14 of 15 applications, using either the functional reinforcer or alternative reinforcers. When we implemented NCR to treat problem behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement, we often had to add other treatment components to produce clinically significant effects (five of nine applications). Results provide information on the effectiveness and limitations of NCR as treatment for severe 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.     

A comparison of procedures for programming noncontingent reinforcement schedules

We compared two methods for programming and thinning noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) schedules during the treatment of self-injurious behavior (SIB). The participants were 3 individuals who had been diagnosed with mental retardation. Results of functional analyses indicated that all participants' SIB was maintained by positive reinforcement (i.e., access to attention or food). Following baseline, the effects of two NCR schedule-thinning procedures were compared in multielement designs. One schedule (fixed increment) was initially set at fixed-time 10-s reinforcer deliveries and was also thinned according to fixed-time intervals. The other schedule (adjusting IRT) was initially determined by participants' baseline interresponse times (IRTs) for SIB and was thinned based on IRTs observed during subsequent treatment sessions. Results indicated that both schedules were effective in initially reducing SIB and in maintaining response suppression as the schedules were thinned.     

A multicomponent approach to thinning reinforcer delivery during noncontingent reinforcement schedules

We evaluated a noncontingent reinforcement procedure that involved initially providing three subjects with signaled, continuous access to the functional reinforcer for aggression and slowly increasing the amount of time subjects were exposed to the signaled unavailability of the reinforcer. Additionally, alternative potential reinforcers were available throughout the sessions. Results showed immediate and substantial reductions in aggression for all three subjects. The clinical utility of this intervention is discussed, and future research directions are recommended.     

The effects of extinction,noncontingent reinforcement and differential reinforcement of other behavior as control procedures

Several techniques have been used in applied research as controls for the introduction of a reinforcement contingency, including extinction, noncontingent reinforcement (NCR), and differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO). Little research, however, has examined the relative strengths and limitations of these "reversal" controls. We compared the effects of extinction with those of NCR and DRO in both multi-element and reversal designs, with respect to (a) rate and amount of response decrement, (b) rate of response recovery following reintroduction of reinforcement, and (c) any positive or negative side effects associated with transitions. Results indicated that extinction generally produced the most consistent and rapid reversal effects, with few observed negative side effects.     

A method for identifying satiation versus extinction effects under noncontingent reinforcement schedules

We evaluated one method for determining whether response suppression under noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) is a function of satiation or extinction. Three individuals with developmental disabilities who engaged in self-injurious behavior (SIB) or aggression participated. Results of functional analyses indicated that their problem behavior was maintained by social-positive reinforcement. NCR procedures, individualized for each participant, were implemented in a multiple baseline across subjects design and were associated with decreases in all participants' problem behavior. Identification of the mechanism by which NCR produced these effects was based on examination of cumulative records showing response patterns during and immediately following each NCR session. Satiation during NCR should lead to a temporary increase in responding during the post-NCR (extinction) period due to a transition from the availability to the unavailability of reinforcement (satiation to deprivation). Alternatively, extinction during NCR should reveal no increase in responding during the extinction period because the contingency for the problem behavior would remain unchanged and the transition from satiation to deprivation conditions would be irrelevant. Results suggested that the operative mechanisms of NCR were idiosyncratic across the 3 participants and appeared to change during treatment for 1 of the participants.     

The effects of noncontingent access to single- versus multiple-stimulus sets on self-injurious behavior

The automatically reinforced self-injury of a girl with autism was treated by providing noncontingent access to a single set of preferred toys during 30-min sessions. The reductive effects of the intervention waned as the session progressed. Rotating toy sets after 10 min or providing access to multiple toy sets resulted in reductions that lasted the entire 30 min.     

Enhancing the effects of extinction on attention-maintained behavior through noncontingent delivery of attention or stimuli identified via a competing stimulus assessment

Recent research has shown that the noncontingent delivery of competing stimuli can effectively reduce rates of destructive behavior maintained by social-positive reinforcement, even when the contingency for destructive behavior remains intact. It may be useful, therefore, to have a systematic means for predicting which reinforcers do and do not compete successfully with the reinforcer that is maintaining destructive behavior. In the present study, we conducted a brief competing stimulus assessment in which noncontingent access to a variety of tangible stimuli (one toy per trial) was superimposed on a fixed-ratio 1 schedule of attention for destructive behavior for individuals whose behavior was found to be reinforced by attention during a functional analysis. Tangible stimuli that resulted in the lowest rates of destructive behavior and highest percentages of engagement during the competing stimulus assessment were subsequently used in a noncontingent tangible items plus extinction treatment package and were compared to noncontingent attention plus extinction and extinction alone. Results indicated that both treatments resulted in greater reductions in the target behavior than did extinction alone and suggested that the competing stimulus assessment may be helpful in predicting stimuli that can enhance the effects of extinction when noncontingent attention is unavailable. DESCRIPTORS: Attention-maintained problem behavior, competing stimuli, extinction, functional analysis, noncontingent reinforcement     

Within‐subject analysis of a prevention strategy for problem behavior

Although decades of research on functional analysis methodology have identified common contingencies that maintain problem behavior and effective interventions, relatively little research has been conducted on strategies to prevent the initial development of problem behavior. We conducted a 2‐part case study, the purposes of which were to illustrate the use of sensitivity tests as the bases for intervention (Study 1) and subsequently to assess the efficacy of a prevention strategy using a single‐subject design (Study 2). Results showed that the sensitivity tests identified establishing operations that may set the occasion for the development of problem behavior and that interventions based on differential reinforcement prevented increases in the severity of problem behavior relative to untreated and control baselines. Benefits and limitations to this individualized approach to prevention are discussed.     

The effects of signaling stimulus presentation during noncontingent reinforcement

The effects of signaling the return of items or attention during treatment with noncontingent reinforcement were examined. First, functional analyses showed that the problem behavior exhibited by 2 teenagers with developmental disabilities was sensitive to social positive reinforcement. Next, delivery of the stimulus that maintained problem behavior on a fixed-time (FT) schedule was compared to a condition in which the removal of the stimulus during the same FT schedule was immediately preceded by a statement indicating that the stimulus would be returned and the initiation of a digital timer. Results show that the FT schedule reduced problem behavior, and the addition of an informative statement and a timer further decreased problem behavior.     

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.     

The effects of noncontingent reinforcement on task disengagement following failure of differential reinforcement treatment

Following the failure of applications of differential reinforcement (DR), the effects of reinforcement delivered noncontingently (NCR) on task disengagement and task completion were evaluated within reversal designs for three children with autism spectrum disorder. In Experiment 1, we compared DR and NCR schedules that combined positive and negative reinforcement. In Experiment 2, we replicated the results of Experiment 1 and then evaluated NCR schedules composed solely of negative reinforcement and NCR schedules that combined negative reinforcement with high-or low-preferred stimuli. In Experiment 3, we further analyzed NCR schedules that included different types and qualities of positive reinforcement, but without the inclusion of negative reinforcement. The results showed that NCR schedules using positive reinforcers can be effective as a treatment for task disengagement, but the type and preference of the reinforcer can alter effectiveness. These results are interpreted in terms of the motivating operations associated with task disengagement.