Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis logoLink to Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
. 1998 Fall;31(3):313–321. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1998.31-313

On the effects of noncontingent delivery of differing magnitudes of reinforcement.

J E Carr 1, J S Bailey 1, C L Ecott 1, K D Lucker 1, T M Weil 1
PMCID: PMC1284125  PMID: 9757577

Abstract

We conducted a parametric analysis of response suppression associated with different magnitudes of noncontingent reinforcement (NCR). Participants were 5 adults with severe or profound mental retardation who engaged in a manual response that was reinforced on variable-ratio schedules during baseline. Participants were then exposed to NCR via multielement and reversal designs. The fixed-time schedules were kept constant while the magnitude of the reinforcing stimulus was varied across three levels (low, medium, and high). Results showed that high-magnitude NCR schedules produced large and consistent reductions in response rates, medium-magnitude schedules produced less consistent and smaller reductions, and low-magnitude schedules produced little or no effect on responding. These results suggest that (a) NCR affects responding by altering an establishing operation (i.e., attenuating a deprivation state) rather than through extinction, and (b) magnitude of reinforcement is an important variable in determining the effectiveness of NCR.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (114.9 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Fischer S. M., Iwata B. A., Mazaleski J. L. Noncontingent delivery of arbitrary reinforcers as treatment for self-injurious behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 1997 Summer;30(2):239–249. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Fisher W., Piazza C. C., Bowman L. G., Hagopian L. P., Owens J. C., Slevin I. A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. J Appl Behav Anal. 1992 Summer;25(2):491–498. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1992.25-491. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Hagopian L. P., Fisher W. W., Legacy S. M. Schedule effects of noncontingent reinforcement on attention-maintained destructive behavior in identical quadruplets. J Appl Behav Anal. 1994 Summer;27(2):317–325. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hanley G. P., Piazza C. C., Fisher W. W., Contrucci S. A., Maglieri K. A. Evaluation of client preference for function-based treatment packages. J Appl Behav Anal. 1997 Fall;30(3):459–473. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-459. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hanley G. P., Piazza C. C., Fisher W. W. Noncontingent presentation of attention and alternative stimuli in the treatment of attention-maintained destructive behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 1997 Summer;30(2):229–237. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Lachter G. D., Cole B. K., Schoenfeld W. N. Response rate under varying frequency of non-contingent reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Mar;15(2):233–236. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.15-233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Lalli J. S., Casey S. D., Kates K. Noncontingent reinforcement as treatment for severe problem behavior: some procedural variations. J Appl Behav Anal. 1997 Spring;30(1):127–137. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Mace F. C., Lalli J. S. Linking descriptive and experimental analyses in the treatment of bizarre speech. J Appl Behav Anal. 1991 Fall;24(3):553–562. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1991.24-553. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Marcus B. A., Vollmer T. R. Combining noncontingent reinforcement and differential reinforcement schedules as treatment for aberrant behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 1996 Spring;29(1):43–51. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Sizemore O. J., Lattal K. A. Dependency, temporal contiguity, and response-independent reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Jan;27(1):119–125. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.27-119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Vollmer T. R., Iwata B. A., Zarcone J. R., Smith R. G., Mazaleski J. L. The role of attention in the treatment of attention-maintained self-injurious behavior: noncontingent reinforcement and differential reinforcement of other behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 1993 Spring;26(1):9–21. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1993.26-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Vollmer T. R., Marcus B. A., Ringdahl J. E. Noncontingent escape as treatment for self-injurious behavior maintained by negative reinforcement. J Appl Behav Anal. 1995 Spring;28(1):15–26. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1995.28-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Vollmer T. R., Ringdahl J. E., Roane H. S., Marcus B. A. Negative side effects of noncontingent reinforcement. J Appl Behav Anal. 1997 Spring;30(1):161–164. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-161. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

RESOURCES