Abstract
Positive reinforcement contingencies can sometimes be used to decrease problem behavior maintained by negative reinforcement (e.g., escape). In the current study, we evaluated the extent to which response cost (i.e., contingent removal of a preferred stimulus) would compete with the negative reinforcer maintaining destructive behavior. The response cost contingency reduced destructive behavior by 87% from baseline levels even though the negative reinforcement contingency (i.e., escape) remained in place.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (90.2 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Carr E. G., Newsom C. D., Binkoff J. A. Stimulus control of self-destructive behavior in a psychotic child. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 1976;4(2):139–153. doi: 10.1007/BF00916518. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Iwata B. A., Dorsey M. F., Slifer K. J., Bauman K. E., Richman G. S. Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. J Appl Behav Anal. 1994 Summer;27(2):197–209. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-197. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lalli J. S., Vollmer T. R., Progar P. R., Wright C., Borrero J., Daniel D., Barthold C. H., Tocco K., May W. Competition between positive and negative reinforcement in the treatment of escape behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 1999 Fall;32(3):285–296. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1999.32-285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Piazza C. C., Fisher W. W., Hanley G. P., Hilker K., Derby K. M. A preliminary procedure for predicting the positive and negative effects of reinforcement-based procedures. J Appl Behav Anal. 1996 Summer;29(2):137–152. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]