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.     

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.     

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.     

Responses of Japanese and American university students to the STAI items that assess the presence or absence of anxiety

Symptom endorsements and item response patterns on the anxiety-present and anxiety-absent items of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Form Y (Spielberger, 1983) for 149 Japanese (99 living in Japan and 50 studying in the United States) and 76 American university students were compared. Although mean scores for the state and trait anxiety-absent items were comparable for Japanese students living in Japan and Japanese international students studying in the United States, the scores of both Japanese groups were significantly higher than those of American students. These differences were attributable to much higher scores of Japanese students on anxiety-absent items that corresponded to a lack of positive feelings. Japanese students had a tendency to inhibit positive (anxiety-absent) feelings, resulting in higher anxiety scores. Responses to anxiety-present and anxiety-absent items should be considered independently in scoring anxiety scales.     

Response-restriction analysis: I. Assessment of activity preferences

We used procedures based on response-restriction (RR) analysis to assess vocational and leisure activity preferences for 3 adults with developmental disabilities. To increase the efficiency of the analysis relative to that reported in previous research, we used criteria that allowed activities to be restricted at the earliest point at which a preference could be determined. Results obtained across two consecutive RR assessments showed some variability in overall preference rankings but a high degree of consistency for highly ranked items. Finally, we compared results of the RR assessment with those of an extended free-operant assessment and found that the RR assessment yielded (a) more differentiated patterns of preference and (b) more complete information about engagement with all of the target activities.     

Elimination of position-biased responding in individuals with autism and intellectual disabilities

Five individuals with autism or other developmental disabilities participated in paired-stimulus preference assessments during repeated baseline probes. All subjects initially showed a pronounced bias by typically selecting the stimulus placed in either the left or right position. Biased responding for 3 subjects was eliminated when training trials were conducted in which a stimulus of known lesser quality was presented as one of the choices. Reinforcer-quality training was unsuccessful for 2 subjects, as was a condition in which reinforcer magnitude was modified to favor unbiased responding. These subjects' biased responding was eliminated only when a correction procedure (repetition of error trials) was implemented.     

NONCONTINGENT REINFORCEMENT: A FURTHER EXAMINATION OF SCHEDULE EFFECTS DURING TREATMENT

We conducted 2 studies to determine whether dense and thin NCR schedules exert different influences over behavior and whether these influences change as dense schedules are thinned. In Study 1, we observed that thin as well as dense NCR schedules effectively decreased problem behavior exhibited by 3 individuals. In Study 2, we compared the effects of 2 NCR schedules in multielement designs, one with and the other without an extinction (EXT) component, while both schedules were thinned. Problem behavior remained low as the NCR schedule with EXT was thinned, but either (a) did not decrease initially or (b) subsequently increased as the NCR schedule without EXT was thinned. These results suggest that dense schedules of NCR decrease behavior by altering its motivating operation but that extinction occurs as the NCR schedule is thinned. The benefits and limitations of using dense or thin NCR schedules are discussed.     

A COMPARISON OF TWO PAIRING PROCEDURES TO ESTABLISH PRAISE AS A REINFORCER

Some individuals with intellectual disabilities do not respond to praise as a reinforcer, which may limit their ability to learn. We evaluated 2 procedures (stimulus pairing and response—stimulus pairing), both of which involved pairing previously neutral praise statements with preferred edible items, to determine their usefulness in establishing praise as a reinforcer. Results of Study 1 indicated that stimulus pairing was not effective in conditioning praise as a reinforcer for 3 of 4 subjects; results were inconclusive for the 4th subject. Results of Study 2 indicated that response—stimulus pairing was effective in conditioning praise as a reinforcer for 4 of 8 subjects. After conditioning, praise also increased the occurrence of additional target responses for these 4 subjects.