Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis logoLink to Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
. 2004 Fall;37(3):249–265. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2004.37-249

Noncontingent reinforcement, alternative reinforcement, and the matching law: a laboratory demonstration.

Cheryl L Ecott 1, Thomas S Critchfield 1
PMCID: PMC1284503  PMID: 15529885

Abstract

Basic researchers, but not most applied researchers, have assumed that the behavior-decelerating effects of noncontingent reinforcement result at least partly from adventitious reinforcement of competing behaviors. The literature contains only sketchy evidence of these effects because few noncontingent reinforcement studies measure alternative behaviors. A laboratory model is presented in which concurrent schedules of contingent reinforcement were used to establish a "target" and an "alternative" behavior. Imposing noncontingent reinforcement decreased target behavior rates and increased alternative behavior rates, outcomes that were well described by the standard quantitative account of alternative reinforcement, the generalized matching law. These results suggest that adventitious reinforcement of alternative behaviors can occur during noncontingent reinforcement interventions, although the range of conditions under which this occurs remains to be determined in future studies. As an adjunct to applied studies, laboratory models permit easy measurement of alternative behaviors and parametric manipulations needed to answer many research questions.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (163.8 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Bacotti A. V. Responding under schedules combining response-dependent and response-independent shock delivery. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Mar;29(2):267–272. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baum W. M. On two types of deviation from the matching law: bias and undermatching. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Jul;22(1):231–242. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-231. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baum W. M., Rachlin H. C. Choice as time allocation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Nov;12(6):861–874. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-861. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Brownstein A. J. Concurrent schedules of response-independent reinforcement: duration of a reinforcing stimulus. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Mar;15(2):211–214. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.15-211. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Brownstein A. J., Pliskoff S. S. Some effects of relative reinforcement rate and changeover delay in response-independent concurrent schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Nov;11(6):683–688. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-683. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. CATANIA A. C. Independence of concurrent responding maintained by interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1962 Apr;5:175–184. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1962.5-175. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Carr J. E., Bailey J. S., Ecott C. L., Lucker K. D., Weil T. M. On the effects of noncontingent delivery of differing magnitudes of reinforcement. J Appl Behav Anal. 1998 Fall;31(3):313–321. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1998.31-313. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Carr J. E., Kellum K. K., Chong I. M. The reductive effects of noncontingent reinforcement fixed-time versus variable-time schedules. J Appl Behav Anal. 2001 Winter;34(4):505–509. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-505. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Critchfield Thomas S. Evaluating the function of applied behavior analysis a bibliometric analysis. J Appl Behav Anal. 2002 Winter;35(4):423–426. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2002.35-423. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Critchfield Thomas S., Paletz Elliott M., MacAleese Kenneth R., Newland M. Christopher. Punishment in human choice: direct or competitive suppression? J Exp Anal Behav. 2003 Jul;80(1):1–27. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2003.80-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Davison M. C., Hunter I. W. Concurrent schedules: undermatching and control by previous experimental conditions. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Sep;32(2):233–244. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.32-233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Davison M., Nevin J. Stimuli, reinforcers, and behavior: an integration. J Exp Anal Behav. 1999 May;71(3):439–482. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1999.71-439. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Ecott C. L., Foate B. A., Taylor B., Critchfield T. S. Further evaluation of reinforcer magnitude effects in noncontingent schedules. J Appl Behav Anal. 1999 Winter;32(4):529–532. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1999.32-529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. FLESHLER M., HOFFMAN H. S. A progression for generating variable-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1962 Oct;5:529–530. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1962.5-529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. 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]
  16. Fisher W. W., O'Connor J. T., Kurtz P. F., DeLeon I. G., Gotjen D. L. The effects of noncontingent delivery of high- and low-preference stimuli on attention-maintained destructive behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 2000 Spring;33(1):79–83. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2000.33-79. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Fisher W. W., Thompson R. H., DeLeon I. G., Piazza C. C., Kuhn D. E., Rodriguez-Catter V., Adelinis J. D. Noncontingent reinforcement: effects of satiation versus choice responding. Res Dev Disabil. 1999 Nov-Dec;20(6):411–427. doi: 10.1016/s0891-4222(99)00022-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. HERRNSTEIN R. J. Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1961 Jul;4:267–272. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1961.4-267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Hagopian L. P., Crockett J. L., van Stone M., DeLeon I. G., Bowman L. G. Effects of noncontingent reinforcement on problem behavior and stimulus engagement: the role of satiation, extinction, and alternative reinforcement. J Appl Behav Anal. 2000 Winter;33(4):433–449. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2000.33-433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. 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]
  21. Innis A., Lane S., Miller E., Critchfield T. Stimulus Equivalence: Effects Of A Default-response Option On Emergence Of Untrained Stimulus Relations. J Exp Anal Behav. 1998 Jul;70(1):87–102. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1998.70-87. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kahng S. W., Iwata B. A., Thompson R. H., Hanley G. P. A method for identifying satiation versus extinction effects under noncontingent reinforcement schedules. J Appl Behav Anal. 2000 Winter;33(4):419–432. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2000.33-419. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. 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]
  24. Lane S. D., Clow J. K., Innis A., Critchfield T. S. Generalization of cross-modal stimulus equivalence classes: operant processes as components in human category formation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1998 Nov;70(3):267–279. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1998.70-267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Laport Ginna G., Levine Bruce L., Stadtmauer Edward A., Schuster Stephen J., Luger Selina M., Grupp Stephan, Bunin Nancy, Strobl Frank J., Cotte Julio, Zheng Zhaohui. Adoptive transfer of costimulated T cells induces lymphocytosis in patients with relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma following CD34+-selected hematopoietic cell transplantation. Blood. 2003 May 22;102(6):2004–2013. doi: 10.1182/blood-2003-01-0095. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Lattal K. A., Abreu-Rodrigues J. Response-independent events in the behavior stream. J Exp Anal Behav. 1997 Nov;68(3):375–398. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1997.68-375. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Lattal K. A. Combinations of response-reinforcer dependence and independence. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Sep;22(2):357–362. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-357. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Lattal K. A., Doepke K. J. Correspondence as conditional stimulus control: insights from experiments with pigeons. J Appl Behav Anal. 2001 Summer;34(2):127–144. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Lindberg Jana S., Iwata Brian A., Roscoe Eileen M., Worsdell April S., Hanley Gregory P. Treatment efficacy of noncontingent reinforcement during brief and extended application. J Appl Behav Anal. 2003 Spring;36(1):1–19. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2003.36-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Mace F. C. Basic research needed for stimulating the development of behavioral technologies. J Exp Anal Behav. 1994 May;61(3):529–550. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1994.61-529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Madden G., Perone M. Human Sensitivity To Concurrent Schedules Of Reinforcement: Effects Of Observing Schedule-correlated Stimuli. J Exp Anal Behav. 1999 May;71(3):303–318. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1999.71-303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Madden Gregory J., Perone Michael. Effects of alternative reinforcement on human behavior: the source does matter. J Exp Anal Behav. 2003 Mar;79(2):193–206. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2003.79-193. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. McDowell J. J. The importance of Herrnstein's mathematical statement of the law of effect for behavior therapy. Am Psychol. 1982 Jul;37(7):771–779. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.37.7.771. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Myerson J., Hale S. Practical implications of the matching law. J Appl Behav Anal. 1984 Fall;17(3):367–380. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1984.17-367. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Ono K. Superstitious behavior in humans. J Exp Anal Behav. 1987 May;47(3):261–271. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1987.47-261. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1999.32-237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  37. Pierce W. D., Epling W. F. The applied importance of research on the matching law. J Appl Behav Anal. 1995 Summer;28(2):237–241. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1995.28-237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Pliskoff S. S., Brown T. G. Matching with a trio of concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Jan;25(1):69–73. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.25-69. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Rachlin H., Baum W. M. Effects of alternative reinforcement: does the source matter? J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Sep;18(2):231–241. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.18-231. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Redd W. H. Effects of mixed reinforcement contingencies on adults' control of children's behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 1969 Winter;2(4):249–254. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1969.2-249. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Ringdahl J. E., Vollmer T. R., Borrero J. C., Connell J. E. Fixed-time schedule effects as a function of baseline reinforcement rate. J Appl Behav Anal. 2001 Spring;34(1):1–15. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Roane H. S., Fisher W. W., Sgro G. M. Effects of a fixed-time schedule on aberrant and adaptive behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 2001 Fall;34(3):333–336. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-333. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Vollmer T. R., Bourret J. An application of the matching law to evaluate the allocation of two- and three-point shots by college basketball players. J Appl Behav Anal. 2000 Summer;33(2):137–150. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2000.33-137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Vollmer T. R., Hackenberg T. D. Reinforcement contingencies and social reinforcement: some reciprocal relations between basic and applied research. J Appl Behav Anal. 2001 Summer;34(2):241–253. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-241. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. 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]
  46. 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]
  47. 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