Comparing skill acquisition under varying onsets of differential reinforcement: A preliminary analysis

The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effect of implementing differential reinforcement at different times relative to the onset of teaching new skills to learners with autism spectrum disorder. Specifically, we first determined the most efficient differential reinforcement arrangement for each participant. Using the most efficient arrangement, we evaluated if differential reinforcement from the immediate onset, early onset, or late onset is the most efficient for learners to acquire a new skill. Three children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder who have a history of receiving intervention based on the principles of applied behavior analysis participated in this study. The immediate onset of differential reinforcement resulted in the most efficient instruction in 6 of 7 comparisons. The results are discussed in light of previous studies and suggestions for future research are provided.     

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.     

Effects of D-amphetamine on response acquisition with immediate and delayed reinforcement.

The present study examined in 8-hour sessions the effects of d-amphetamine (1.0, 5.6, and 10 mg/kg) on the acquisition of lever-press responding in rats that were exposed to procedures in which water delivery was delayed by 0, 8, or 16 seconds relative to the response that produced it. Both nonresetting- and resetting-delay conditions were studied. Although neither shaping nor autoshaping occurred, substantial levels of operative-lever responding developed under all conditions in which responses produced water. The lowest dose (1.0 mg/kg) of d-amphetamine either had no effect on or increased operative-lever pressing, whereas higher doses typically produced an initial reduction in lever pressing. Nonetheless, overall rates of operative-lever pressing at these doses were as high as, or higher than, those observed with vehicle. Thus, response acquisition was observed under all reinforcement procedures at all drug doses. In the absence of the drug, most responding occurred on the operative lever when reinforcement was immediate. Such differential responding also developed under both nonresetting- and resetting-delay procedures when the delay was 8 seconds, but not when it was 16 seconds. d-Amphetamine did not affect the development of differential responding under any procedure. Thus, consistent with d-amphetamine's effects under repeated acquisition procedures, the drug had no detrimental effect on learning until doses that produced general behavioral disruption were administered.     

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.     

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.     

Use of a lag differential reinforcement contingency to increase varied selections of classroom activities

The present study evaluated the effects of a lag differential reinforcement contingency on 2 students' activity selections using reversal designs. Results showed that the lag contingency was responsible for promoting increased novel selections, engagement in diverse activities, and greater progress with respect to programmed academic activities.     

Investigations of operant ABA renewal during differential reinforcement

Operant renewal is a form of relapse in which a previously extinguished response recurs due to a change in context. We designed two experiments to examine the impact of differential reinforcement of alternative behavior on ABA renewal in a translational model of relapse with 12 children. We compared levels of renewal in two 3-phase arrangements. In one arrangement, we reinforced target responding in Context A, extinguished responding in Context B, and returned to Context A while continuing to implement extinction. In a second arrangement, an alternative response produced reinforcement in Context B and during the return to Context A. Results across the 2 experiments indicated 3 general findings. First, extinction plus differential reinforcement disrupted target behavior more consistently in Context B relative to extinction alone. Second, renewal tended to be greater and more persistent during extinction alone relative to extinction plus differential reinforcement. Third, the renewal effect appeared to depend on whether the alternative response had a history of extinction in Context A. We discuss methodological implications for the treatment of severe destructive behavior.     

An investigation of differential reinforcement of alternative behavior without extinction

We manipulated relative reinforcement for problem behavior and appropriate behavior using differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) without an extinction component. Seven children with developmental disabilities participated. We manipulated duration (Experiment 1), quality (Experiment 2), delay (Experiment 3), or a combination of each (Experiment 4), such that reinforcement favored appropriate behavior rather than problem behavior even though problem behavior still produced reinforcement. Results of Experiments 1 to 3 showed that behavior was often sensitive to manipulations of duration, quality, and delay in isolation, but the largest and most consistent behavior change was observed when several dimensions of reinforcement were combined to favor appropriate behavior (Experiment 4). Results suggest strategies for reducing problem behavior and increasing appropriate behavior without extinction.     

A review of reinforcement control procedures

A demonstration of the effects of reinforcement requires comparison of response rates in the presence of a contingency with those in another condition that controls for the influence of extraneous variables. We describe several control conditions that have been used in evaluating the effects of positive and negative reinforcement. The methodological rigor and practical utility of each type of control condition are discussed, and recommendations for the use of these conditions are presented.     

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.     

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.     

A comparison of fixed momentary differential reinforcement of other behavior to variable momentary differential reinforcement of other behavior to reduce challenging behavior

Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) is commonly used to reduce behavioral excesses. Momentary DRO schedules involve delivery of reinforcement contingent upon the absence of the target behavior at a given moment. Two variations of momentary DRO exist: fixed-momentary (FM) DRO and variable-momentary (VM) DRO. In the current study, we directly compared FM-DRO and VM-DRO schedules to reduce challenging behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement exhibited by four children with autism spectrum disorder. The results suggest that both the DRO schedules were equally effective to reduce challenging behavior. A social validity measure showed that most caregivers rated the VM-DRO as a preferred schedule and noted the potential for FM-DRO schedule to become more discriminable over time, which could reduce its effectiveness. However, most caregivers also commented that the FM-DRO schedule was easier to implement.     

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 molar theory of reinforcement schedules

Behavior of subjects exposed to concurrent and individual interval and ratio schedules of reinforcement may be described in terms of a set of expressions relating the value of responses to their durations, a feedback equation relating reinforcement to response duration, and the assumption that subjects allocate their time among various responses so as to maximize value.     

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.     

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.     

Effects on choice of reinforcement delay and conditioned reinforcement

Pigeons chose between fixed-interval schedules of different durations presented in the terminal links of concurrent-chains schedules. The pair of schedules was always in the ratio of 2:1, but the absolute duration of the fixed intervals varied. In one set of conditions, the different terminal-link schedules were associated with different keylight stimuli (cued conditions). In a second set of conditions, the different terminal-link schedules were associated with the same stimulus (uncued conditions). Results from the cued conditions replicated previous findings that preference for the shorter fixed-interval schedule increased with fixed-interval duration. Preferences in the uncued conditions were lower than in the corresponding cued conditions but also increased with fixed-interval length. In addition, the degree of control under the uncued conditions was correlated with the extent to which the schedule during the terminal link was discriminated immediately upon entry into the terminal link. The pattern of results in both conditions was inconsistent with the notion that choice behavior matches relative immediacy of reinforcement. Reanalysis of previous evidence for matching (Chung and Herrnstein, 1967) showed that matching in fact did not occur, as the preferences of their subjects for the shorter of two delays also increased with the absolute size of the delays.     

An evaluation of differential reinforcement with stimulus fading as an intervention for medical compliance

Individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often exhibit noncompliance during medical exams. One intervention used to address this concern is differential reinforcement. Although differential reinforcement includes extinction, it may not be feasible or safe to implement extinction during medical exams. In the current study, we evaluated differential reinforcement without extinction and differential reinforcement without extinction plus stimulus fading, for increasing compliance during routine medical exams exhibited by 4 individuals with ASD. An indirect assessment identified problematic medical procedures, and a functional analysis showed that participants' disruptive behavior was maintained by escape from medical tasks. Differential reinforcement without extinction was insufficient in increasing medical compliance with 3 of 4 participants. The addition of a modified stimulus fading procedure that involved gradually introducing smaller components of problematic exam steps was effective in increasing medical compliance with all exam steps.