Competition Between Noncontingent and Contingent Reinforcement Schedules During Response Acquisition

Abstract

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.DESCRIPTORS: functional analysis, noncontingent reinforcement, differential reinforcement of alternative behavior, functional communication training, self-injurious behavior, satiation

Reinforcement Schedule Thinning Following Functional Communication Training: Review and Recommendations

“…Brown et al (2000) demonstrated that delivering the functional reinforcer noncontingently (which ostensibly altered the EO) decreased both rates of communication and problem behavior maintained by the same reinforcer (i.e., same response class; see also Goh, Iwata, & DeLeon, 2000). Providing noncontingent access to "arbitrary" reinforcement (i.e., reinforcers other than those responsible for maintaining problem behavior) has been suggested as a possible method to facilitate schedule thinning (Hanley et al, 2001).…”

Motivating Operations and Terms to Describe Them: Some Further Refinements

“…Thus, treatments that involve MO manipulations may change alternative behaviors in addition to target behaviors. Using a relatively dense time-based schedule, Goh, Iwata, and DeLeon (2000) delivered reinforcers that maintained self-injurious behavior while they concurrently attempted to train appropriate alternative behaviors, specifically mands, using the same reinforcers. The time-based schedule reduced the rate of self-injurious behavior but also interfered with the acquisition of mands, and this schedule appears to have functioned as an AO for the reinforcers, thereby preventing them from strengthening mands.…”

Análise funcional do comportamento autolesivo

“…As manipulações ambientais para tratar comportamento autolesivo mantido por reforçamento social positivo envolvem reforçamento não contingente (noncontingent reinforcement, NCR) [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] . Em combinação com NCR, alguns trabalhos acrescentam a estratégia de reforçamento diferencial de comportamentos alternativos (differential reinforcement of alternative behavior, DRA) 10,13 ou reforçamento diferencial de outros comportamentos (differential reinforcement of other behavior, DRO) 7 .…”

“…Goh et al 13 trataram SIB com um pacote NCR mais DRA, em duas mulheres (28 e 43 anos) com retardo mental. A eficiência do DRA em fortalecer mandos dependeu da densidade do NCR programado, isto é, houve melhor aquisição de comportamento apropriado (mandos) em esquemas de tempo menos densos (intervalos de tempo mais longos).…”