Bridging the gap between laboratory and applied research on response-independent schedules

In 1948, Skinner described the behavior of pigeons under response-independent schedules as “superstitious,” and proposed that the responses were reinforced by contiguous, adventitious food deliveries. Subsequently, response-independent schedules have been of interest to both basic and applied researchers, first to understand the mechanisms involved, and later, as “noncontingent reinforcement” (NCR) to reduce undesirable behavior. However, the potential superstitious effects produced by these schedules have been challenged, with some researchers arguing that antecedent variables play a significant role. This paper examines the evidence for adventitious reinforcement from both laboratory and applied research, the results of which suggest that antecedent, nonoperant functions may be important in fully understanding the effects of NCR. We propose an applied-basic research synthesis, in which attention to potential nonoperant functions could provide a more complete understanding of response-independent schedules. We conclude with a summary of the applied implications of the nonoperant functions of NCR schedules.     

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.     

Resurgence following differential reinforcement of alternative behavior implemented with and without extinction

In the clinic, differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) often involves programming extinction for destructive behavior while reinforcing an alternative form of communication (e.g., a functional communication response); however, implementing extinction can be unsafe or impractical under some circumstances. Quantitative theories of resurgence (i.e., Behavioral Momentum Theory and Resurgence as Choice) predict differences in the efficacy of treatments that do and do not involve extinction of target responding when reinforcement conditions maintaining alternative responding worsen. We tested these predictions by examining resurgence following two DRA conditions in which we equated rates of reinforcement. In DRA without extinction, target and alternative behavior produced reinforcement. In DRA with extinction plus noncontingent reinforcement, only alternative behavior produced reinforcement. We conducted this study in a reverse-translation sequence, first with participants who engaged in destructive behavior (Experiment 1) and then in a laboratory setting with rats (Experiment 2). Across both experiments, we observed proportionally lower levels of target responding during and following the DRA condition that arranged extinction for the target response. However, levels of resurgence were similar following both arrangements.     

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 competes with response performance

Noncontingent reinforcement is a commonly used procedure to decrease levels of problem behavior. Goals of this intervention are to decrease motivation, responding, and the functional relation between behavior and consequences, but it could also possibly compete with performance of alternative desirable responses. In the current study, we assessed the effects of noncontingent reinforcement arranged from 0% to 100% of sessions on performance of alternative responding across two experiments. Experiment 1 assessed manding (i.e., requests) maintained by attention and tangibles with a child with developmental disabilities and Experiment 2 assessed keypecking maintained by food with six pigeons. We extended previous research by (a) showing that noncontingent reinforcement competes with both the acquisition and maintenance (performance) of an alternative response, (b) extending the generality of the findings across nonhuman and human participants, and (c) eliminating influence of sequence effects through random manipulations of noncontingent value in pigeons. Overall, greater amounts of noncontingent reinforcement competed with both acquisition and maintenance of alternative responding.     

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.     

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.     

Adventitious reinforcement during long-duration DRO exposure

Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) is a procedure often used to decrease problem behavior, but the processes responsible for behavior reduction are not well understood. This study assessed whether adventitious reinforcement of other behavior contributes to DRO effectiveness when, relative to previous research, DRO exposure is prolonged. Two response options were presented on a computer and target responding was reinforced on a variable-ratio schedule. Response rates were then compared during DRO versus yoked variable-time or extinction probes. Across 2 experiments, DRO decreased target responding and increased other responding more than control conditions. However, increases in other responding did not usually maintain despite target responding remaining at low levels. DRO might adventitiously reinforce other responses transiently but the decreases in target behavior could not be entirely explained by adventitious reinforcement of the other response. Instead, reductions in target responding likely depend on the discriminability of the DRO contingency.     

Behavioral momentum theory: equations and applications

Behavioral momentum theory provides a quantitative account of how reinforcers experienced within a discriminative stimulus context govern the persistence of behavior that occurs in that context. The theory suggests that all reinforcers obtained in the presence of a discriminative stimulus increase resistance to change, regardless of whether those reinforcers are contingent on the target behavior, are noncontingent, or are even contingent on an alternative behavior. In this paper, we describe the equations that constitute the theory and address their application to issues of particular importance in applied settings. The theory provides a framework within which to consider the effects of interventions such as extinction, noncontingent reinforcement, differential reinforcement of alternative behavior, and other phenomena (e.g., resurgence). Finally, the theory predicts some counterintuitive and potentially counterproductive effects of alternative reinforcement, and can serve as an integrative guide for intervention when its terms are identified with the relevant conditions of applied settings.     

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.     

Assessing the combined effects of resurgence and reinstatement in children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder

Resurgence and reinstatement are laboratory models of relapse following treatments for problem behavior that arrange alternative sources of reinforcement, such as differential reinforcement of alternative behavior and noncontingent reinforcement. Resurgence models the elimination or reduction of reinforcers during treatment and reinstatement models the re‐presentation of reinforcers previously maintaining problem behavior. The present study examined individual and combined effects of resurgence and reinstatement in a translational model of treatment relapse with three children diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. We first reinforced and then extinguished an arbitrary response while providing access to a preferred toy to model a version of noncontingent reinforcement with extinction. In the following phases, we examined resurgence by removing the toy, reinstatement by presenting the training reinforcer response‐independently, and a combination of resurgence and reinstatement. Overall, relapse of target responding reliably exceeded functionally similar responses never reinforced in the experimental situation. Most importantly, relapse tended to be greater when combining resurgence and reinstatement than when assessing either alone. These findings support previous studies showing that combinations of operations can increase treatment relapse. This translational model arranging simulated problem behavior with arbitrary tasks provides a platform from which to thoroughly and systematically assess methods for understanding and improving behavioral treatments.     

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.     

Brief assessment and treatment of pica using differential reinforcement,response interruption and redirection,and competing stimuli

Pica is a life threating form of challenging behavior displayed by individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. In most cases, pica is maintained by automatic reinforcement. Common interventions for pica use some combination of response blocking, response interruption and redirection (RIRD), differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA), and noncontingent reinforcement with competing stimuli. However, there is need for additional research regarding DRA procedures that emphasize skills acquisition by teaching alternative behaviors that modify the established behavioral chain of pica responses that occur in the presence of non-edible stimuli. There is also a need to examine the generality of recent advances in competing stimulus assessment (CSA) methodologies—namely, the augmented-CSA (A-CSA)—to pica. Thus, the purpose of the present investigation was to systematically replicate and extend previous research for the assessment and treatment of pica in an individual with IDD. First, we conducted a functional analysis to identify environmental variables associated with pica. Next, taught Patrick a differential response (i.e., discard pica items in trash receptacle) to earn reinforcers in conjunction with a RIRD procedure. Finally, we conducted an A-CSA for pica. Overall, low rates of pica were maintained over time with a combination of these procedures, and treatment was generalized across settings and people.     

Behavioral momentum theory fails to account for the effects of reinforcement rate on resurgence

The behavioral‐momentum model of resurgence predicts reinforcer rates within a resurgence preparation should have three effects on target behavior. First, higher reinforcer rates in baseline (Phase 1) produce more persistent target behavior during extinction plus alternative reinforcement. Second, higher rate alternative reinforcement during Phase 2 generates greater disruption of target responding during extinction. Finally, higher rates of either reinforcement source should produce greater responding when alternative reinforcement is suspended in Phase 3. Recent empirical reports have produced mixed results in terms of these predictions. Thus, the present experiment further examined reinforcer‐rate effects on persistence and resurgence. Rats pressed target levers for high‐rate or low‐rate variable‐interval food during Phase 1. In Phase 2, target‐lever pressing was extinguished, an alternative nose‐poke became available, and nose‐poking produced either high‐rate variable‐interval, low‐rate variable‐interval, or no (an extinction control) alternative reinforcement. Alternative reinforcement was suspended in Phase 3. For groups that received no alternative reinforcement, target‐lever pressing was less persistent following high‐rate than low‐rate Phase‐1 reinforcement. Target behavior was more persistent with low‐rate alternative reinforcement than with high‐rate alternative reinforcement or extinction alone. Finally, no differences in Phase‐3 responding were observed for groups that received either high‐rate or low‐rate alternative reinforcement, and resurgence occurred only following high‐rate alternative reinforcement. These findings are inconsistent with the momentum‐based model of resurgence. We conclude this model mischaracterizes the effects of reinforcer rates on persistence and resurgence of operant 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.     

Additional free reinforcers increase persistence of problem behavior in a clinical context: A partial replication of laboratory findings

Behavioral momentum theory is a quantitative framework used to characterize the persistence of behavior during response disruptors as a function of baseline stimulus–reinforcer relations. Results of several investigations have shown that alternative reinforcement can increase the resistance to change of a target response during extinction. In the present study, concomitant variable‐interval fixed‐time schedules of reinforcement for problem behavior were employed to simulate naturalistic situations involving the superimposition of response‐independent reinforcers on a baseline schedule of reinforcement for problem behavior, as in the common use of noncontingent reinforcement treatments. Resistance to change of problem behavior was assessed during postsession periods of extinction by comparing response rates in extinction following sessions with and without additional reinforcer deliveries arranged by fixed‐time schedules. For 2 out of 3 participants, problem behavior tended to be more resistant to extinction following periods in which additional fixed‐time reinforcers were delivered. These results are discussed in terms of potential effects of noncontingent reinforcement on problem behavior when the intervention is discontinued or implemented without good treatment integrity.     

THE EFFECTS OF FIXED-TIME REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULES ON FUNCTIONAL RESPONSE CLASSES: A TRANSLATIONAL STUDY

Research on functional response classes has applied significance because less severe forms of problem behavior have been found to co‐occur with more severe forms. In addition, the most severe forms of problem behavior are sometimes targeted for intervention without monitoring other less severe forms. In such cases, it is unknown whether and how untreated forms of problem behavior covary with the targeted behaviors. The present study employed a translational procedure (with button presses as the target behavior) to investigate response covariation under noncontingent reinforcement with typically developing preschoolers. The results indicated that noncontingent reinforcement was generally effective in decreasing all response class members when only one member was targeted.     

Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior increases resistance to extinction: clinical demonstration, animal modeling, and clinical test of one solution

Basic research with pigeons on behavioral momentum suggests that differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) can increase the resistance of target behavior to change. This finding suggests that clinical applications of DRA may inadvertently increase the persistence of target behavior even as it decreases its frequency. We conducted three coordinated experiments to test whether DRA has persistence-strengthening effects on clinically significant target behavior and then tested the effectiveness of a possible solution to this problem in both a nonhuman and clinical study. Experiment 1 compared resistance to extinction following baseline rates of reinforcement versus higher DRA rates of reinforcement in a clinical study. Resistance to extinction was substantially greater following DRA. Experiment 2 tested a rat model of a possible solution to this problem. Training an alternative response in a context without reinforcement of the target response circumvented the persistence-strengthening effects of DRA. Experiment 3 translated the rat model into a novel clinical application of DRA. Training an alternative response with DRA in a separate context resulted in lower resistance to extinction than employing DRA in the context correlated with reinforcement of target behavior. The value of coordinated bidirectional translational research is discussed.     

Developing a treatment for hand‐clapping maintained by automatic reinforcement using sensory analysis,noncontingent reinforcement,and thinning

Two subjects diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and related disabilities who engaged in hand‐clapping maintained by automatic reinforcement participated in this study. We conducted a sensory analysis to evaluate matched stimuli that functioned as an abolishing operation or extinction for different sources of sensory reinforcement. Finally, we implemented noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) using the stimuli found to compete in the assessment to reduce the target behavior, and we thinned item availability. Results showed a decrease in hand‐clapping, and hand‐clapping remained low when we thinned the schedule of reinforcement. This research further elucidates how NCR can treat problem behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement.     

Response deprivation and reinforcement in applied settings: A preliminary analysis

First-grade children engaged in seatwork behaviors under reinforcement schedules established according to the Premack Principle and the Response Deprivation Hypothesis. Across two experiments, schedules were presented to the children in a counter-balanced fashion which fulfilled the conditions of one, both, or neither of the hypotheses. Duration of on-task math and coloring in Experiment 1 and on-task math and reading in Experiment 2 were the dependent variables. A modified ABA-type withdrawal design, including a condition to control for the noncontingent effects of a schedule, indicated an increase of on-task instrumental responding only in those schedules where the condition of response deprivation was present but not where it was absent, regardless of the probability differential between the instrumental and contingent responses. These results were consistent with laboratory findings supporting the necessity of response deprivation for producing the reinforcement effect in single response, instrumental schedules. However, the results of the control procedure were equivocal so the contribution of the contingent relationship between the responses to the increases in instrumental behavior could not be determined. Nevertheless, these results provided tentative support for the Response Deprivation Hypothesis as a new approach to establishing reinforcement schedules while indicating the need for further research in this area. The possible advantages of this technique for applied use were identified and discussed.