Systematic Changes in Preference for Schedule-Thinning Arrangements as a Function of Relative Reinforcement Density

Abstract

We treated destructive behavior maintained by both social-positive (i.e., access to tangibles) and social-negative (i.e., escape from demands) reinforcement in an individual diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder using functional communication training (FCT). We then thinned the schedule of reinforcement for the tangible function using a multiple schedule (mult FCT) and later thinned the availability of escape using a chained schedule (chain FCT). Both treatments proved effective at maintaining functional communicative responses while decreasing destructive behavior to near-zero levels. In addition, treatment effects maintained when we rapidly thinned mult FCT to the terminal schedule. Throughout chain-FCT schedule thinning, we assessed client preference for each schedule-thinning arrangement (mult FCT or chain FCT) using a concurrent-chains procedure. Client preference reliably shifted from chain FCT to mult FCT as the response requirement increased and the proportion of session spent in reinforcement began to favor mult FCT. We discuss the clinical implications of these findings.

On the generality of preference for contingent reinforcement

“…Other potential factors influencing outcomes could include preference for receiving reinforcers spaced over time, the increased value of a reinforcer following the effort of completing a response requirement (Hackenberg, 2009), or the density of reinforcement in a given condition if proper yoking procedures were not employed (Briggs et al, 2018;Herrnstein, 1961). Although the outcomes from the statistical analyses did not suggest that yoking procedures made a significant difference in preference outcomes, this inclusion of studies that used no yoking procedures likely affected this.…”

Comparisons of standardized and interview‐informed synthesized reinforcement contingencies relative to functional analysis

“…Case 3 later participated as Samantha in Briggs, Akers, Greer, Fisher, and Retzlaff (). None of her data overlap across the two studies.…”

Using schedule-correlated stimuli during functional communication training to promote the rapid transfer of treatment effects.

“…Behavior analysts generally select mult FCT for destructive behavior maintained by social positive reinforcement (e.g., attention, tangible items) by alternating two schedules of reinforcement—a reinforcement component (signaled by the S D ) in which the behavior analyst reinforces the FCR according to a fixed-ratio (FR) 1 and an extinction component (signaled by the S Δ ) in which the reinforcer is unavailable (for a review, see Saini, Miller, & Fisher, 2016). By developing discriminative control over the FCR (i.e., FCRs occurring exclusively in the S D component), behavior analysts have used mult FCT to thin reinforcement schedules for the FCR gradually (e.g., Greer et al, 2016; Hanley et al, 2001; Jarmolowicz, DeLeon, & Kuhn, 2009; Rooker et al, 2013) and rapidly (e.g., Betz et al, 2013; Briggs, Akers, Greer, Fisher, & Retzlaff, 2018; Fisher, Greer, Fuhrman, & Querim, 2015; Fuhrman, Fisher, & Greer, 2016; Greer et al, 2016). In most cases, investigators have reached the desired terminal schedule (e.g., S D components lasting 1 min and S Δ components lasting 4 min) with rates of destructive behavior averaging 80 to 100% below baseline rates (e.g., Greer et al, 2016; Rooker et al, 2013).…”