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.     

An integrated model for guiding the selection of treatment components for problem behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement

We evaluated the usefulness of 2 assessments to guide treatment selection for individuals whose prior functional analysis indicated that automatic reinforcement maintained their problem behavior. In the 1st assessment, we compared levels of problem behavior during a noncontingent play condition and an alone or ignore condition. In the 2nd, we assessed participants’ relative preferences for automatic reinforcement and social reinforcers in a concurrent‐operants arrangement. We used the results of these 2 assessments to assign 5 participants to a treatment based on noncontingent access to social reinforcers or to a treatment based on differential access to social reinforcers. We conducted monthly probes with the participants over 10 to 12 months to evaluate the effects of the treatment procedures. All participants showed reductions in problem behavior over this period.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Variable-time reinforcement schedules in the treatment of socially maintained problem behavior

Noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) consists of delivering a reinforcer on a time-based schedule, independent of responding. Studies evaluating the effectiveness of NCR as treatment for problem behavior have used fixed-time (FT) schedules of reinforcement. In this study, the efficacy of NCR with variable-time (VT) schedules was evaluated by comparing the effects of VT and FT reinforcement schedules with 2 individuals who engaged in problem behavior maintained by positive reinforcement. Both FT and VT schedules were effective in reducing problem behavior. These findings suggest that VT schedules can be used to treat problem behavior maintained by social consequences.     

A review of environmental enrichment as treatment for problem behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement

We reviewed studies that used environmental enrichment as treatment for problem behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement. A search of behavior analytic journals produced 71 publications with a total of 265 applications of environmental enrichment used alone or in conjunction with alternative behavior manipulations (e.g., prompting, reinforcement) and problem behavior manipulations (e.g., blocking, restraint). Environmental enrichment, as a sole intervention, was efficacious in 41% of the sample. Alternative behavior manipulations, problem behavior manipulations, and a combination of both improved the overall efficacy of environmental enrichment. We discuss factors that may influence the efficacy of environmental enrichment, current trends in research on this topic, and implications for both practitioners and researchers.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Concurrent reinforcement schedules for problem behavior and appropriate behavior: experimental applications of the matching law

This study evaluated how children who exhibited functionally equivalent problem and appropriate behavior allocate responding to experimentally arranged reinforcer rates. Relative reinforcer rates were arranged on concurrent variable-interval schedules and effects on relative response rates were interpreted using the generalized matching equation. Results showed that relative rates of responding approximated relative rates of reinforcement. Finally, interventions for problem behavior were evaluated and differential reinforcement of alternative behavior and extinction procedures were implemented to increase appropriate behavior and decrease problem behavior. Practical considerations for the application of the generalized matching equation specific to severe problem behavior are discussed, including difficulties associated with defining a reinforced response, and obtaining steady state responding in clinical settings.     

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.     

A comparison of various forms of reinforcement with and without extinction as treatment for escape-maintained problem behavior

The present investigation compared the effects of reinforcing compliance with either positive or negative reinforcement for a participant who displayed escape-maintained problem behavior. The results indicated that positive reinforcement in the form of a highly preferred edible or leisure item produced higher levels of compliance and lower levels of problem behavior when compared to negative reinforcement in the form of escape from demands. In addition, an extinction procedure was unnecessary to achieve high levels of compliance.