Noncontingent Reinforcement Procedure Research Articles

A multicomponent approach to thinning reinforcer delivery during noncontingent reinforcement schedules.

We evaluated a noncontingent reinforcement procedure that involved initially providing three subjects with signaled, continuous access to the functional reinforcer for aggression and slowly increasing the amount of time subjects were exposed to the signaled unavailability of the reinforcer. Additionally, alternative potential reinforcers were available throughout the sessions. Results showed immediate and substantial reductions in aggression for all three subjects. The clinical utility of this intervention is discussed, and future research directions are recommended.

Noncontingent Reinforcement in After-School Settings to Decrease Classroom Disruptive Behavior for Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) is the response-independent delivery of a reinforcer (Vollmer, Iwata, Zarcone, Smith, and Mazaleski in Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 26: 9-21 1993). Two staff members (preservice education majors) implemented NCR procedures for two students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) who exhibited problem behavior and attended an after-school program. The amount of training on NCR and procedural fidelity was measured for each staff member, and the effects of the treatment on problem behavior were evaluated. Results indicate NCR is a low-effort procedure that reduced problem behavior of two participants with ASD. • NCR can both reduce problem behaviors of clients who engage in difficult behaviors (Carr, Severtson, & Lepper, 2009). • NCR can be used for clients for whom extinction-induced behaviors are dangerous (Tucker, Sigafoos, and Bushell in Behavior Modification, 22: 529-547, 1998). • Nonbehavioral providers can implement NCR with high fidelity, making it a good procedure to use when collaborating with other professionals (teachers, SLP, parents, etc.; Matson, 2009). • NCR can be used when clinicians first begin working with a client until more detailed interventions are created.

Signaling stimulus presentation during treatment with noncontingent reinforcement: Visual versus vocal signals

AbstractThe independent effects of two signals implemented during treatment with noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) were examined. First, functional analyses showed that problem behavior exhibited by two individuals with developmental disabilities was sensitive to social positive reinforcement. A reversal design was then used to compare the effectiveness of a timer (NCR‐visual) to a vocal statement (NCR‐vocal) indicating when the stimulus would be returned in the context of a NCR procedure. Results showed that NCR reduced problem behavior for both participants. In addition, for one participant, the NCR‐visual condition reduced problem behavior to a greater degree than the NCR‐vocal condition. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Noncontingent Reinforcement as Treatment for Tub-Standing in a Toddler

The present case study investigated whether the tub-standing of a typicallydeveloping toddler could be reduced by a noncontingent reinforcement procedure. The results of a brief functional analysis suggested that tub-standing was maintained by automatic reinforcement. Noncontingent reinforcement, consisting of presentation of bath toys on a fixed-time schedule, was effective in reducing the number of tub-stands per session. These results suggest that noncontingent reinforcement can be successfully applied to problem behavior

Basic research, application, ethics, and recommendations regarding non-contingent reinforcement procedures

The article highlights some findings in basic and applied research regarding the use of non-contingent reinforcement procedures. An emphasis is placed on the role of adventitious reinforcement of desirable or undesirable behaviors. Skinner argued that to best help people in need would be to provide functional behaviors so that people can later help themselves. Non-contingent reinforcement procedures may not help people develop such behaviors. A recommendation is made for implementation of multiple desirable target behaviors in application venues that use differential reinforcement methods to suppress undesirable behaviors.

NONCONTINGENT REINFORCEMENT: AN INAPPROPRIATE DESCRIPTION OF TIME‐BASED SCHEDULES THAT REDUCE BEHAVIOR

Several articles published recently in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis demonstrate that fixed-time (FT) schedules can be used to reduce troublesome behaviors (for a review of these and related articles, see Tucker, Sigafoos, & Bushell, 1998). In the first article in this series, Vollmer, Iwata, Zarcone, Smith, and Mazaleski (1993) demonstrated through functional analysis that the self-injurious behavior of 3 women was maintained by attention. Subsequently, they reduced the self-injurious behavior of those women by delivering attention under an FT schedule. They referred to the FT schedule as a noncontingent reinforcement procedure, and the name unfortunately has stuck. For example, in the most recent article in the series, Carr, Bailey, Ecot, Lucker, and Weil (1998) indicate that ‘‘In a noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) procedure, the reinforcer responsible for maintaining a problem behavior is delivered on a fixed-time (FT) or variable-time schedule’’ (p. 313). It is standard practice in behavior analysis to define reinforcement functionally, that is, as an operation or process in which the occurrence of a behavior is followed by a change in the environment (reinforcer) and as a result such behavior subsequently increases in rate, or is otherwise strengthened (e.g., Catania, 1991; Chance, 1998; Miltenberger, 1997). Operations that have other effects characteristically are not referred to as reinforcement. If this convention is followed, delivery of attention under an FT schedule did not constitute reinforcement in

Noncontingent presentation of attention and alternative stimuli in the treatment of attention-maintained destructive behavior.

Previous research has demonstrated that destructive behavior may be reduced through noncontingent presentation of attention when attention is identified as the stimulus responsible for behavioral maintenance. Because it may not always be possible to deliver attention in all situations, we examined the extent to which alternative stimuli that have been identified through a choice assessment would substitute for attention (the functional analysis-based reinforcer) in a noncontingent reinforcement procedure. Prior to treatment, functional analyses demonstrated that the destructive behavior of 2 clients with mental retardation was maintained by adult attention. Next, a stimulus choice assessment identified highly preferred tangible items for the 2 clients. Finally, we compared the effectiveness of two noncontingent reinforcement procedures: continuous noncontingent access to attention and continuous noncontingent access to the tangible item identified in the choice assessment. For both clients, these noncontingent reinforcement procedures reduced destructive behavior. The results are discussed in terms of the clinical implications for the treatment of destructive behavior using functional and alternative stimuli.

The effects of feedback and contingent reinforcement on the exercise behavior of chronic pain patients

The purpose of this study was to increase knowledge through research in the area of operant management of chronic back pain, using a strong experimental design. Reinforcement was made contingent on rate of walking, and feedback about progress was provided at certain intervals during each observation session. The changing criterion experimental design for a single subject indicated important systematic increases in walking rate, while the no-reinforcement and non-contingent reinforcement procedures produced no systematic effect. Pre-post ratings showed an average decrease in reported pain.

SOME TEMPORAL PARAMETERS OF NON‐CONTINGENT REINFORCEMENT1

In each baseline session, pigeons were exposed to a multiple schedule in which each of five distinctive stimuli was correlated with a different frequency of reinforcement. In one component, responses were reinforced with a probability of 0.10 (random-ratio schedule); in the other four components, responses were reinforced with different scheduled temporal frequencies averaging 30 to 240 sec between reinforcements (random-interval schedules). For periods lasting 30 sessions, contingent reinforcement was discontinued and reinforcement was presented independent of responding at irregular intervals averaging 30, 60, or 120 sec, while the sequence of stimuli continued. After each such period, the baseline was reinstated for 30 sessions. The data indicated that: (1) The rate of responding in the presence of all stimuli decreased as exposure to the non-contingent reinforcement procedure was prolonged, at all the frequencies of reinforcement employed; (2) The rate under the random-ratio schedule declined faster than the rates under all the random-interval schedules, presumably because the decrease in reinforcement frequency under this stimulus condition was greatest; (3) The decline in rates of responding under the stimuli correlated with the random-interval schedules tended to be greatest for the stimuli paired with the lowest frequencies of reinforcement.

RESPONSE RATE UNDER VARYING FREQUENCY OF NON‐CONTINGENT REINFORCEMENT1

Two White Carneaux hen pigeons were exposed to a 60-sec random-interval baseline procedure. Six different exteroceptive stimuli were successively correlated, within a single session, with blocks of 10 reinforcement presentations. Following this training, a non-contingent reinforcement procedure was instated with inter-reinforcement intervals of 5, 15, 30, 60, 120, and 240 sec. Within a single session, each non-contingent frequency was correlated with one of the previously presented discriminative stimuli. After an initial increase in the rate of responding as the result of a high density of non-contingent reinforcements, the rate declined as exposure to each non-contingent frequency was prolonged.