On the Effects of Noncontingent Delivery of Differing Magnitudes of Reinforcement

Using an arbitrary response, we evaluated fixed-time (FT) schedules that were either similar or dissimilar to a baseline (response-dependent) reinforcement schedule and extinction. Results suggested that both FT schedules and extinction resulted in decreased responding. However, FT schedules were more effective in reducing response rates if the FT reinforcer rate was dissimilar to baseline reinforcer rates. Possible reasons for this difference were evaluated with data analysis methods designed to identify adventitious response-reinforcer relations.DESCRIPTORS: noncontingent reinforcement, fixed-time schedules, developmental disabilities A time-based schedule is defined as a schedule during which the reinforcer is delivered response independently on either a periodical (fixed-time, FT) or an aperiodical (variable-time, VT) schedule (Marr & Zeiler, 1974). Because time-based schedules disrupt response-reinforcer relations, the effects can be similar to extinction (Catania, 1969). That is, reinforcement depends on a contingency, and when FT or VT is implemented following a reinforcement baseline, a previously existing contingency is disrupted. However, procedurally, time-based schedules This study was conducted as part of the first author's dissertation at Louisiana State University. The research was conducted during an internship at Children's Seashore House in Philadelphia. We thank Carrie Wright and Christina Vorndran for their assistance with data collection.Address correspondence to Joel E. Ringdahl, University Hospital School, 100 Hawkins Dr. Room 349, Iowa City, Iowa 52242-1011 (E-mail: joel-ringdahl@ uiowa.edu).are distinguished from extinction in that the reinforcer is not withheld.Further analysis of time-based schedules is needed for at least two reasons. First, factors responsible for the relation between timebased schedules and response reduction have not been clearly identified. For example, some laboratory research has shown that extinction is more effective than time-based schedules in reducing response rates (e.g., Lattal, 1972;Rescorla & Skucy, 1969). Conversely, there is evidence that under some circumstances FT schedules reduce response rates more effectively than extinction . In a study with nonhumans, Rescorla and Skucy found both VT and extinction resulted in decreased response rates, but extinction resulted in more immediate and larger decreases in behavior. Similarly, Lattal showed that FT and VT schedules following fixed-interval (FI) and variable-interval (VI) reinforcement sched-

Section: Fixed-time Schedule Effects Asmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent research concerning FT schedules and reinforcement schedules has been conducted using arbitrary responses (Carr et al, 1998). Results from these types of investigations may have clinical significance.…”

Section: Fixed-time Schedule Effects Asmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fixed‐time Schedule Effects as a Function of Baseline Reinforcement Rate

Ringdahl

Vollmer

Borrero

et al. 2001

“…Magnitude of reinforcement can take the form of intensity, number, or duration. Carr, Bailey, Ecott, Lucker, and Weil (1998) examined magnitude effects in the form of number of stimuli presented on suppression of an arbitrary response. Results demonstrated differentially greater suppressive effects of a noncontingent schedule that arranged a greater magnitude than one that arranged a lower magnitude.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Magnitude and Quality of Reinforcement on Choice Responding During Play Activities

Hoch

McComas²,

Johnson³

et al. 2002

Three boys with autism participated in a study of the effects of magnitude and quality of reinforcement on choice responding. Two concurrent response alternatives were arranged: (a) to play in an area where a peer or sibling was located, or (b) to play in an area where there was no peer or sibling. During one condition, the magnitude (i.e., duration of access to toys) or quality (level of preference) of reinforcement provided for both responses was equal. During the other condition, the magnitude or quality of reinforcement was relatively greater for choosing the play area where the peer or sibling was located than the area where the peer or sibling was not located. Results showed that after repeated exposure to the unequal magnitude or quality condition, the participant increasingly allocated his responses to the play area where the peer or sibling was located. For 2 participants, this pattern of responding was maintained in the subsequent equal magnitude or quality condition. Overall, the analysis suggests that the dimensions of magnitude and quality of reinforcement can be arranged to influence choice responding in favor of playing near a peer or sibling rather than playing alone.

“…DESCRIPTORS: functional analysis, noncontingent reinforcement, differential reinforcement of alternative behavior, functional communication training, self-injurious behavior, satiation Noncontingent reinforcement (NCR), which is defined as delivery of a reinforcer according to a schedule that is not response contingent (Rescorla & Skucy, 1969), was originally designed as an experimental control technique but has emerged in the applied literature as an effective treatment for severe behavior disorders (Vollmer, Iwata, Zarcone, Smith, & Mazaleski, 1993). Recent studies on NCR include parametric variations (J. E. Carr et al, 1998;Hagopian, Fisher, & Legacy, 1994), procedural variations based on the function of the target behaviors (Fischer, Iwata, & Mazaleski, 1997;Hanley, Piazza, & Fisher, 1997;Lalli, Casey, & Kates, 1997;Vollmer, Marcus, & Ringdahl, 1995), and comparative analyses (Mace & Lalli, 1991;Roscoe, Iwata, & Goh, 1998;Vollmer et al, 1993). In addition, two studies have focused on potential problems that might arise during the course of implementing NCR interventions: (a) adventitious reinforcement of problem behavior as a side effect of NCR (Vollmer, Ringdahl, Roane, & Marcus, 1997), and (b) satiation effects associated with NCR that may interfere with the acquisition of other behaviors (Marcus & Vollmer, 1996).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Competition Between Noncontingent and Contingent Reinforcement Schedules During Response Acquisition

Goh

Iwata

DeLeon

2000

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