A comparison of positive and negative reinforcement for compliance to treat problem behavior maintained by escape

Abstract

Previous research has shown that problem behavior maintained by escape can be treated using positive reinforcement. In the current study, we directly compared functional (escape) and nonfunctional (edible) reinforcers in the treatment of escape-maintained problem behavior for 5 subjects. In the first treatment, compliance produced a break from instructions. In the second treatment, compliance produced a small edible item. Neither treatment included escape extinction. Results suggested that the delivery of a positive reinforcer for compliance was effective for treating escape-maintained problem behavior for all 5 subjects, and the delivery of escape for compliance was ineffective for 3 of the 5 subjects. Implications and future directions related to the use of positive reinforcers in the treatment of escape behavior are discussed.

Effects of reinforcement without extinction on increasing compliance with nail cutting: A systematic replication

“…Delivery of positive reinforcement for compliant behavior may be a viable alternative to escape extinction when treating escape‐maintained problem behavior. Slocum and Vollmer () compared the delivery of nonfunctional edible items to the delivery of escape in reducing escape‐maintained problem behavior and increasing compliance of five children with developmental disabilities. Delivery of edible items was effective in both reducing problem behavior and increasing compliance for all five participants, whereas delivery of escape was effective in reducing problem behavior and increasing compliance for only two of the five participants.…”

Using stimulus preference assessments to identify preferred break environments

“…This contingency involved two functional reinforcers: ending the ongoing demands (negative reinforcement) and simultaneously providing contingent access to tangibles or attention (positive reinforcement). In other experiments with participants for whom problem behavior was shown to be sensitive to escape from demands, the use of positive reinforcers (edibles) for compliance was found to be more effective in increasing compliance and decreasing problem behavior than the contingent use of breaks (Lalli et al, 1999;Slocum & Vollmer, 2015). Conducting a preference assessment for break environments may be another way to determine the positive reinforcers to include in treatment protocols.…”

Investigation of Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior Without Extinction for Escape-Maintained Problem Behavior

“…Researchers manipulating the quality of reinforcement during DRA without extinction for escape‐maintained destructive behavior have done so by providing an “enhanced” escape period in which access to preferred stimuli such as attention, edible items, or leisure activities (i.e., social‐positive reinforcers) are provided during a brief break from instructional demands (i.e., social‐negative reinforcement) contingent upon an alternative behavior (e.g., compliance; Athens & Vollmer, ; Hoch et al, ; Lalli & Casey, ; Piazza et al, ; cf. Adelinis et al, ; Carter, ; DeLeon et al, ; Lalli et al, ; Slocum & Vollmer, ). Specifically, four studies conducted with a total of eight children who engaged in escape‐maintained (Athens & Vollmer, ; Hoch et al, ) or multiply‐controlled (including escape; Lalli & Casey, ; Piazza et al, ) destructive behavior have arranged this manipulation in several ways.…”

“…For instance, research has shown that manipulating various response and reinforcer dimensions 1 to favor an alternative response over destructive behavior effectively increases the alternative response, even when destructive behavior continues to produce the functional reinforcer (e.g., Athens & Vollmer, 2010;Borrero et al, 2010;Hoch, McComas, Thompson, & Paone, 2002;Horner & Day, 1991;Kunnavatana, Bloom, Samaha, Slocum, & Clay, 2018;Piazza et al, 1999). Specifically, for escape-maintained destructive behavior, researchers have manipulated the magnitude of reinforcement (Athens & Vollmer, 2010), schedule of reinforcement (Lalli & Casey, 1996), delay to reinforcement (Athens & Vollmer, 2010), quality of reinforcement (Adelinis, Piazza, & Goh, 2001;Athens & Vollmer, 2010;Carter, 2010;DeLeon, Neidert, Anders, & Rodriguez-Catter, 2001;Hoch et al, 2002;Lalli & Casey, 1996;Lalli et al, 1999;Piazza et al, 1997;Slocum & Vollmer, 2015), or some combined dimensions of reinforcement (Lalli & Casey, 1996), and examined whether these are effective strategies for treating destructive behavior in the absence of extinction.…”