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

Abstract

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.

Evaluation of transferability of persistence-enhancing effects of reinforcement through stimulus equivalence.

“…As human-operant BMT preparations can inconsistently demonstrate BMT-compatible outcomes across participants (cf. Dube & McIlvane, 2002; Ferreira Lacerda et al, 2017; Lieving et al, 2018; Romani et al, 2016; Saini & Fisher, 2016), we took additional measures to increase the probability of producing BMT-predicted effects.…”

“…Dube & McIlvane, 2002; Lambert, Bloom, Samaha, Dayton, & Kunnavatana, 2016). However, human-operant BMT research will often keep magnitude of reinforcement (per delivery) constant and will instead use fixed- or variable-time schedules to increase rates of reinforcement in rich components (e.g., Ahearn, Clark, Gardenier, Chung, & Dube, 2003; Lambert et al, 2016; Lieving et al, 2018; Lionello-Denolf & Dube, 2011; Romani et al, 2016; Saini & Fisher, 2016; Saini, Fisher, & Pisman, 2017). Although magnitude manipulations are known to produce differential response persistence (e.g., Harper & McLean, 1992; Nevin, 1974; Shettleworth & Nevin, 1965; Shull & Grimes, 2006), it is possible that preparations involving time-based schedules of reinforcement would have produced more pronounced effects in Phase 2 and would have increased the likelihood of the transfer of persistence during Phase 3.…”

“…We conducted Phases 2 using a two-component multiple schedule imbedded into a multiple-baseline across participants design. We chose to employ experimental techniques that could establish control both within (multiple schedule) and across (multiple baseline) participants because outcomes in human-operant BMT experiments can sometimes be inconsistent across participants (e.g., Dube & McIlvane, 2002; Ferreira Lacerda, Jordão Suarez, & Costa, 2017; Lieving, DeLeon, Carreau-Webster, Frank-Crawford, & Triggs, 2018; Romani et al, 2016; Saini & Fisher, 2016). We wanted our procedures to detect orderly relations at whichever level(s) of analysis that they emerged.…”

Acquisition of responses with different effort requirements after exposure to noncontingent stimuli

“…In another study, resistance to extinction emerged as a result of noncontingent Exposure to noncontigent stimuli problem behavior, a procedure occasionally used in applied contexts (Lieving, DeLeon, Carreau-Webster, Frank-Crawford, & Triggs, 2018).…”