We conducted a parametric analysis of response suppression associated with different magnitudes of noncontingent reinforcement (NCR). Participants were 5 adults with severe or profound mental retardation who engaged in a manual response that was reinforced on variable-ratio schedules during baseline. Participants were then exposed to NCR via multielement and reversal designs. The fixed-time schedules were kept constant while the magnitude of the reinforcing stimulus was varied across three levels (low, medium, and high). Results showed that high-magnitude NCR schedules produced large and consistent reductions in response rates, medium-magnitude schedules produced less consistent and smaller reductions, and low-magnitude schedules produced little or no effect on responding. These results suggest that (a) NCR affects responding by altering an establishing operation (i.e., attenuating a deprivation state) rather than through extinction, and (b) magnitude of reinforcement is an important variable in determining the effectiveness of NCR.

It has been suggested that non-experts regard the jargon of behavior analysis as abrasive, harsh, and unpleasant. If this is true, excessive reliance on jargon could interfere with the dissemination of effective services. To address this often discussed but rarely studied issue, we consulted a large, public domain list of English words that have been rated by members of the general public for the emotional reactions they evoke. Selected words that behavior analysts use as technical terms were compared to selected words that are commonly used to discuss general science, general clinical work, and behavioral assessment. There was a tendency for behavior analysis terms to register as more unpleasant than other kinds of professional terms and also as more unpleasant than English words generally. We suggest possible reasons for this finding, discuss its relevance to the challenge of deciding how to communicate with consumers who do not yet understand or value behavior analysis, and advocate for systematic research to guide the marketing of behavior analysis.

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.

We closely replicated the procedures of a previous study that showed a positive relationship between reinforcer magnitude and the response-rate-reducing effects of noncontingent schedules (NCS). NCS reduced response rates, as expected, but the NCS-magnitude effect was not reproduced, illuminating possible weaknesses of current arbitrary-response procedures and suggesting avenues for future research.