Accumulated and distributed response–reinforcer arrangements during the treatment of escape‐maintained problem behavior

Abstract

Contingent positive reinforcement has proven more effective in treating escape-maintained problem behavior than contingent negative reinforcement, particularly when problem behavior continues to produce escape. However, this research has overwhelmingly used distributed-reinforcement arrangements, where tasks and reinforcer access are interspersed throughout the work period. An alternative to interspersal involves allowing the individual to accumulate and then receive a larger quantity of reinforcement once work requirements are completed; this is known as an accumulatedreinforcement arrangement. The current study examined the efficacy of, and preference for positive (food) and negative (break) reinforcement contingencies delivered in accumulated and distributed arrangements in the treatment of escape-maintained problem behavior. In Experiment 1, accumulated break was preferred for 4 of 5 participants and accumulated food was preferred for 3 of 5. In Experiment 2, accumulated break was similarly effective to distributed break for 3 of 5 participants and accumulated and distributed food were equally effective for 4 participants.

Give the dog a big bone: Magnitude but not delivery method of food impacts preference and reinforcer efficacy in dogs.

“…Similar to the results of Frank-Crawford et al (2021), we did not find any difference between delivery methods. It is possible that the consummatory behavior of the dogs in the current study did not vary significantly between delivery methods, given that the treats were relatively small and consuming all four treats at once likely did not take the dogs any longer than four treats one-by-one, nor did dogs move away to eat and then return to gather the next piece of food as did some animals in prior studies (e.g., Amsel et al, 1968).…”

“…The relative efficacy of accumulated reinforcers could be due to continuity of access, such that engaging longer with food when presented differently (one large vs. many small items) could produce similar differences in reinforcer efficacy. However, Frank-Crawford et al (2021) investigated accumulated and distributed food reinforcers for children and found that accumulated food and distributed food were equally effective for all four learners.…”

“…It is possible that the consummatory behavior of the dogs in the current study did not vary significantly between delivery methods, given that the treats were relatively small and consuming all four treats at once likely did not take the dogs any longer than four treats one-by-one, nor did dogs move away to eat and then return to gather the next piece of food as did some animals in prior studies (e.g., Amsel et al, 1968). As for the effects of accumulated versus distributed reinforcers, while our procedures were similar to these procedural types (e.g., DeLeon et al, 2014; Frank-Crawford et al, 2021; Fulton et al, 2020), they were not identical: animals did not accumulate reinforcers across trials. While our results align with Frank-Crawford et al (2021) regarding food delivery, given the suggestive results emanating from human applied literature, we hope future research more explicitly evaluates the effects of accumulated reinforcement on dog behavior.…”

“…As for the effects of accumulated versus distributed reinforcers, while our procedures were similar to these procedural types (e.g., DeLeon et al, 2014; Frank-Crawford et al, 2021; Fulton et al, 2020), they were not identical: animals did not accumulate reinforcers across trials. While our results align with Frank-Crawford et al (2021) regarding food delivery, given the suggestive results emanating from human applied literature, we hope future research more explicitly evaluates the effects of accumulated reinforcement on dog behavior.…”

“…Research on accumulated versus distributed reinforcers supports the hypothesis that continuity of access to certain types of reinforcers, especially those that are best consumed or experienced en masse such as engaging in preferred activities or escape from an aversive activity, could increase the value of the reinforcer, at least for some individuals (e.g., DeLeon et al, 2014; Fulton et al, 2020). Frank-Crawford et al (2021) evaluated both escape, the functional reinforcer for the target behavior, and food in accumulated and distributed reinforcement strategies. While they never detected that accumulated reinforcement was more effective than distributed reinforcement, accumulated escape was as effective as a reinforcer as distributed escape for three of the five children, and accumulated food was as effective as a reinforcer as distributed food for four out of four children.…”