Choices between positive and negative reinforcement during treatment for escape-maintained behavior.

Positive reinforcement was more effective than negative reinforcement in promoting compliance and reducing escape‐maintained problem behavior for a child with autism. Escape extinction was then added while the child was given a choice between positive or negative reinforcement for compliance and the reinforcement schedule was thinned. When the reinforcement requirement reached 10 consecutive tasks, the treatment effects became inconsistent and reinforcer selection shifted from a strong preference for positive reinforcement to an unstable selection pattern.     

The effects of variable-time delivery of food items and praise on problem behavior reinforced by escape

Prior research indicates that reinforcement of an appropriate response (e.g., compliance) can produce concomitant reductions in problem behavior reinforced by escape when problem behavior continues to produce negative reinforcement (e.g., Lalli et al., 1999). These effects may be due to a preference for positive over negative reinforcement or to positive reinforcement acting as an abolishing operation, rendering demands less aversive and escape from demands less effective as negative reinforcement. In the current investigation, we delivered a preferred food item and praise on a variable-time 15-s schedule while providing escape for problem behavior on a fixed-ratio 1 schedule in a demand condition for 3 participants with problem behavior maintained by negative reinforcement. Results for all 3 participants showed that variable-time delivery of preferred edible items reduced problem behavior even though escape continued to be available for these responses. These findings are discussed in the context of motivating operations.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

COMPETITION BETWEEN POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT IN THE TREATMENT OF ESCAPE BEHAVIOR

We compared the effects of reinforcing compliance with either positive reinforcement (edible items) or negative reinforcement (a break) on 5 participants' escape-maintained problem behavior. Both procedures were assessed with or without extinction. Results showed that compliance was higher and problem behavior was lower for all participants when compliance produced an edible item rather than a break. Treatment gains were achieved without the use of extinction. Results are discussed regarding the use of positive reinforcement to treat escape behavior.     

THE USE OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT IN THE TREATMENT OF ESCAPE-MAINTAINED DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR

We identified 3 clients whose destructive behavior was sensitive to negative reinforcement (break from tasks) and positive reinforcement (access to tangible items, attention, or both). In an instructional context, we then evaluated the effects of reinforcing compliance with one, two, or all of these consequences (a break, tangible items, attention) when destructive behavior produced a break and when it did not (escape extinction). For 2 clients, destructive behavior decreased and compliance increased when compliance produced access to tangible items, even though destructive behavior resulted in a break. For 1 client, extinction was necessary to reduce destructive behavior and to increase compliance. Subsequently, when the schedule of reinforcement for compliance was faded for all clients, destructive behavior was lower and fading proceeded more rapidly when compliance produced multiple functional reinforcers (i.e., a break plus tangible items or attention) and destructive behavior was on extinction. The results are discussed in terms of the effects of relative reinforcement value and extinction on concurrent operants.     

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 differential negative reinforcement on disruption and compliance

We examined the effects on compliance of two types of differential negative reinforcement (DNR) with a 5-year-old girl with a history of severe disruption. During DNR (communication), escape from instructional trials was provided contingent on a communicative behavior. During DNR (compliance), escape was provided contingent on compliance. Both interventions decreased inappropriate behavior and increased appropriate behavior. However, during DNR (communication), compliance rarely occurred.     

Further analysis of modifications to the three-step guided compliance procedure to enhance compliance among children with autism

Three-step guided compliance (vocal prompt, vocal plus model prompt, vocal prompt plus physical guidance) is a commonly used procedure to increase compliance among children with intellectual disabilities. Previous research has suggested that under some conditions, slight modifications to the three-step procedure may enhance its effectiveness. These modifications include omitting the model prompt and decreasing the interprompt interval. In the current study, we evaluated another modification to the procedure: the delivery of a high-preference item contingent upon compliance with the first vocal prompt (i.e., differential reinforcement). For 2 participants with autism, compliance remained low when we implemented differential reinforcement and the guided compliance procedure in isolation. However, compliance improved when we combined differential reinforcement and the three-step guided procedure, suggesting that for at least some children, the combination of contingent access to a high-preference item and the guided compliance procedure is more effective than either intervention alone.     

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.     

Partial remediation of speaker and listener behaviors in people with severe dementia

We investigated the effects of contingent reinforcement (Intervention 1) and contingent reinforcement with modeling (Intervention 2) on speaker and listener behaviors in 5 people with severe dementia. Intervention 1 generally increased listener behavior; there was no clear effect on tacting, but echoic behavior increased in the one case investigated. Given the weak baseline repertoires of these clients and the paucity of other effective interventions, even the small increases in verbal behaviors found here are important. Further gains may be achieved, for example, if reinforcement opportunity per trial type were to be increased from one to several per day or if participants were trained to echo the listener stimulus in mand compliance tasks.     

Further investigation of differential reinforcement of alternative behavior without extinction for escape‐maintained destructive behavior

Previous research indicates that manipulating dimensions of reinforcement during differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) for situations in which extinction cannot be implemented is a potential approach for treating destructive behavior. Therefore, we replicated and extended previous research by determining (a) the conditions under which DRA without extinction decreased and maintained low levels of destructive behavior and (b) whether intervention effects maintained during reinforcement schedule thinning for the alternative response (i.e., compliance). Results showed that effective treatments were developed in the absence of extinction by manipulating the quality of reinforcement for compliance for 2 participants and by combining manipulations of the magnitude and quality of reinforcement for compliance for the other 2 participants. However, maintaining treatment effects during reinforcement schedule thinning required combining the magnitude and quality of reinforcement for 3 of the 4 participants. We discuss the clinical utility of this approach, review limitations of the study, and suggest directions for future research.     

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.     

正强化和负强化:概念、争议与神经机制

1975年,Michael首次正式提出应放弃"正强化"和"负强化"术语的使用,引起对"正强化和负强化是否本质上具有区别"这一问题的关注和争议。正负强化究竟本质上是否有区分、如何区分、以及区分它们的意义等问题,得到了众多行为心理学家的深入探讨。多数学者再度阐明正强化和负强化具有不同的心理机制,加以区分具有重要应用意义,主张沿用对它们的区分。最近,对正负强化神经机制的研究取得突破性进展,进一步揭示它们具有截然不同的神经相关过程。我们建议,分析强化作用进行时,机体是否在环境条件作用下已经偏离了基础、正常的心理稳态,有助于规范理解强化物启动的是正还是负强化的神经过程。     

Further examination of factors that influence preference for positive versus negative reinforcement

Factors that influence choice between qualitatively different reinforcers (e.g., a food item or a break from work) are important to consider when arranging treatments for problem behavior. Previous findings indicate that children who engage in problem behavior maintained by escape from demands may choose a food item over the functional reinforcer during treatment (DeLeon, Neidert, Anders, & Rodriguez-Catter, 2001; Lalli et al., 1999). However, a number of variables may influence choice between concurrently available forms of reinforcement. An analogue for treatment situations in which positive reinforcement for compliance is in direct competition with negative reinforcement for problem behavior was used in the current study to evaluate several variables that may influence choice. Participants were 5 children who had been diagnosed with developmental disabilities and who engaged in problem behavior maintained by escape from demands. In the first phase, the effects of task preference and schedule of reinforcement on choice between a 30-s break and a high-preference food item were evaluated. The food item was preferred over the break, regardless of the preference level of the task or the reinforcement schedule, for all but 1 participant. In the second phase, the quality of the break was manipulated by combining escape with toys, attention, or both. Only 1 participant showed preference for the enriched break. In the third phase, choice of a medium- or low-preference food item versus the enriched break was evaluated. Three of 4 participants showed preference for the break over the less preferred food item. Results extend previous research by identifying some of the conditions under which individuals who engage in escape-maintained behavior will prefer a food reinforcer over the functional one.     

A comparison of group contingencies on academic compliance

We used a reversal design with an embedded multielement design to compare the effects of an independent group contingency and a randomized dependent group contingency on compliance with assigned literacy worksheets in a first‐grade general education classroom. Nine participants were selected based on low levels of compliance in baseline or by teacher identification. Results indicated that both group contingencies increased compliance relative to baseline for the majority of participants. The independent condition produced higher levels of compliance for four students and the randomized dependent condition produced higher levels of compliance for one student. For four students, the two group contingencies were equally effective. A preference assessment indicated that the majority of target students preferred the randomized dependent condition and the majority of nontarget students preferred the independent condition. A number of potential explanations for our preference findings, including the possible role of obtained reinforcement, are discussed.     

Theoretical implications of quantitative properties of interval timing and probability estimation in mouse and rat

Although theoretical discussions typically assume that positive and negative reinforcement differ, the literature contains little unambiguous evidence that they produce differential behavioral effects. To test whether the two types of consequences control behavior differently, we pitted money‐gain positive reinforcement and money‐loss‐avoidance negative reinforcement, scheduled through identically programmed variable‐cycle schedules, against each other in concurrent schedules. Contingencies of response‐produced feedback, normally different in positive and negative reinforcement, were made symmetrical. Steeper matching slopes were produced compared to a baseline consisting of all positive reinforcement. This free‐operant differential outcomes effect supports the notion that that stimulus‐presentation positive reinforcement and stimulus‐elimination negative reinforcement are functionally “different.” However, a control experiment showed that the feedback asymmetry of more traditional positive and negative reinforcement schedules also is sufficient to create a “difference” when the type of consequence is held constant. We offer these findings as a small step in meeting the very large challenge of moving negative reinforcement theory beyond decades of relative quiescence.     

Nondirective prompting and noncontingent reinforcement in the treatment of destructive behavior during hygiene routines.

The escape-maintained destructive behavior of a girl with mental retardation persisted during hygiene routines with directive prompting, differential reinforcement for compliance, and extinction as treatment. Using nondirective prompting and noncontingent reinforcement, destructive behavior was reduced to near-zero levels during the hygiene routine.