Noncontingent Reinforcement and the Acquisition of Appropriate Behavior

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2005, 6, NUMBER 1 (SUMMER 2005) 51 Noncontingent Reinforcement and the Acquisition of Appropriate Behavior The University of Iowa Noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) continues to be a successful treatment option to reduce severe problem behavior exhibited by individuals with developmental disabilities. The approach has been demonstrated effective across behavioral function and there is a growing body of literature suggesting NCR can be effective in combination with response-dependent reinforcement schedules. The literature on NCR in combination with response-dependent reinforcement schedules suggests that NCR does not necessarily reduce the effectiveness of contingent reinforcers when acquisition of appropriate behavior is a clinical goal, depending on the density of the NCR schedule component. Robust findings for NCR as treatment Noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) has become one of a number of treatment options clinicians have at their disposal when attempting to address severe behavior problems. Similar to consequence-based treatment strategies such as differential reinforcement and functional communication training (FCT), NCR has been demonstrated to be successful across behavioral function. Vollmer, Iwata, Zarcone, Smith, and Mazaleski (1993) provided a demonstration of the utility of NCR for reducing problem behavior maintained by positive reinforcement. In this seminal study, the effects of noncontingent attention were compared to attention provided on a differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) schedule for three individuals whose self-injurious behavior (SIB) was maintained by social attention. Results indicated that both treatments were effective for reducing SIB for all participants. Noncontingent reinforcement has also been demonstrated to be effective for reducing problem behavior maintained by negative reinforcement. Vollmer, Marcus, and Ringdahl (1995) identified Corresponding author:, Ph.D., Center for Disabilities and Development, 100 Hawkins Drive Room 353, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA. joel-ringdahl@uiowa.edu 51 two individuals whose SIB was maintained by escape from nonpreferred activities. For both individuals, noncontingent reinforcement (in this case, noncontingent escape, or NCE) was implemented as treatment. Similar to the results observed by Vollmer et al. (1993), both participants SIB decreased following implementation of NCE. The use of noncontingent reinforcement schedules has also been effective in reducing problem behavior maintained by nonsocial or automatic reinforcement. Ringdahl, Vollmer, Marcus, and Roane (1997) demonstrated that, for some individuals who engage in SIB maintained by automatic reinforcement, the noncontingent availability of preferred stimuli sometimes decreases target responding. These results have been demonstrated in a number of studies that focus on the implementation of enriched environments (e.g., Horner, 1980) or the provision of stimuli that match the potential sensory consequence of the problem behavior (e.g., Piazza, Adelinis, Hanley, Goh, & Delia, 2000). Response patterns during NCR One benefit of NCR as treatment is the, often, immediate reduction in problem behavior. A fac-

2 52 tor that might account for this immediate decrease is the reinforcer delivery schedule. For example, Vollmer et al. (1993) and Vollmer et al. (1995) provided the reinforcer on an initially continuous basis. Thus, the participants had constant access to the functional reinforcer. Such a schedule should reduce motivation to engage in behavior that historically resulted in the delivery of the functional reinforcer because that reinforcer is present. It is possible that schedules that do not result in continuous access lead to different response patterns. In fact, there have been a handful of studies on NCR that have demonstrated the response pattern observed under dense NCR schedules to be different than those obtained under less dense (or, lean) schedules. For example, Hagopian, Fisher, and Legacy (1994) compared dense and lean NCR schedules in the treatment of four individuals attention-maintained problem behavior. Each participant exhibited immediate reductions to near-zero rates of problem behavior when the dense NCR schedule was in place. Three of the 4 participants exhibited reduced rates of problem behavior when the lean NCR schedule was in place. However, the reduction was not as pronounced as observed with the dense NCR schedule. Following a schedule fading procedure, low levels of problem behavior were maintained using the lean NCR schedule. Drawbacks of NCR Though NCR has many benefits such as immediate reduction in problem behavior and ease of implementation (Vollmer, 1994), there are some drawbacks that should be considered. One such drawback is the inadvertent maintenance of problem behavior as a function of adventitious reinforcement. Vollmer, Roane, Ringdahl, and Marcus (1997) provided a demonstration of this drawback. In their study, noncontingent access to preferred items was provided. As the schedule thinned, delivery of preferred stimuli occurred contiguous with problem behavior resulting in maintenance of problem behavior. A momentary DRO (i.e., a short period of time without problem behavior had to elapse at the end of the inter-reinforcement interval before the reinforcer could be delivered) had to be implemented to reduce problem behavior A second drawback to NCR is one that is more of a clinical concern rather than a conceptual phenomenon. Specifically, the use of NCR only as treatment does not result in teaching the individual any alternative, appropriate behavior. In this manner, NCR as treatment differs from differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) strategies such as FCT and compliance training. In many situations, such as educational and vocational environments, teaching alternative appropriate behavior is desirable. In other situations, such as residential service provision, teaching alternative appropriate behavior may be mandated. One way to address this drawback is to use NCR in combination with other schedule arrangements that are designed to establish, maintain, or increase alternative appropriate behavior. NCR and combined schedules of reinforcement If NCR is used in combination with other schedules, there are a few empirical questions that might arise. First, would such a combination still result in reductions in problem behavior? Second, would such a combination reduce the effectiveness of those same reinforcers (i.e., functional reinforcers) in establishing or maintaining appropriate behavior? There is an emerging body of literature that addresses the use of NCR as a component of combined reinforcement schedules. Some insight into these concerns can be gleaned from this literature. Within this literature, NCR schedules, designed to decrease inappropriate behavior, are combined with differential reinforcement schedules, designed to increase appropriate behavior, thus addressing one of the drawbacks to NCR as treatment. Marcus and Vollmer (1996) provided one of the first examples of this type of combined reinforcement schedule. In their study, three children with developmental disabilities were identified whose aberrant behavior was maintained by social positive reinforcement in the form of access to preferred items or activities. Treatment for two of the three participants included combined NCR and differential reinforce-

3 NCR and Acquisition 53 ment of alternative behavior (DRA) schedules. For both participants, two similar outcomes were observed. First, problem behavior was reduced relative to the pre-treatment baseline. Second, appropriate behavior (i.e., appropriate mands) was observed and maintained throughout the treatment evaluation as the NCR component of the combined schedule changed densities ranging from continuous availability to one 20-s presentation every 5 minutes. It is interesting to note that for one participant (Sally), the rate of appropriate mands appeared to increase as the NCR schedule density decreased (i.e., as the interval between response-independent reinforcer presentation was lengthened). The implication of this result is that NCR might hinder appropriate responding when the NCR schedule is sufficiently dense. When the NCR schedule is not dense, appropriate responding may be more likely to occur. Goh, Iwata, and DeLeon (2000) provided and empirical evaluation of the relationship between NCR schedule density and response acquisition for two individuals with developmental disabilities. Both individuals engaged in problem behavior (SIB) determined to be maintained by social positive reinforcement (tangibles for one participant and attention for the other). When the combined effects of NCR and DRA were evaluated, a pattern similar to those observed by Marcus and Vollmer (1996) emerged. Specifically, SIB decreased with the implementation of the combined schedule. In addition, when the NCR component was at its most dense, alternative responding was at its lowest. As the NCR component was thinned (i.e., the rate of presentation decreased), the rate of alternative responding increased. A third example of a study that evaluated the combined effects of NCR and differential reinforcement schedules was provided by Reed, Ringdahl, Wacker, Barretto, and Andelman (2005). This study differed from the Marcus and Vollmer (1996) and Goh et al. (2000) studies in at least four ways. First, the function of the problem behavior evaluated in the Reed et al. study was negative reinforcement (escape from academic tasks). Second, the NCR schedule density was not thinned across observations as was done in the Marcus and Vollmer (1996) and Goh et al. (2000) studies. Third, NCR was added to the DRA schedule following implementation of the DRA schedule as a sole component of treatment. Fourth, the appropriate behavior targeted for acquisition and maintenance was compliance with tasks as opposed to communication. Similar results were observed across both participants in the Reed et al. study. Reductions in problem behavior were noted when differential negative reinforcement of alternative behavior (DNRA) was implemented. When fixed-time, or noncontingent, escape (FTE) was added to the reinforcement schedule, problem behavior remained low regardless of schedule density. Differential results were observed relative to appropriate behavior depending on the density of the FTE schedule component. One participant (Anthony) displayed increased compliance following implementation of the DNRA schedule. When a lean FTE schedule was added, compliance remained high. When the FTE component switched from lean to dense, compliance decreased. The other participant (Kelly) displayed response patterns similar to those observed with Anthony during the DNRA and DNRA plus dense FTE schedules. However, variable results were obtained when the FTE component was lean. During one implementation of DNRA plus lean FTE, compliance was not observed (neither was problem behavior). During the second implementation of DNRA plus lean FTE, compliance returned to the elevated rates observed during DNRA only. These results are consistent with those reported by Marcus and Vollmer (1996) and Goh et al. (2000) even though there were several differences in the manner in which NCR was implemented (i.e., no systematic schedule thinning) and the function of the behavior. Taken collectively, these three studies suggest the following. First, combining NCR with response-dependent reinforcement schedule can be effective to address problem behavior maintained by both positive and negative reinforcement. Second, when arranged in a combined schedule, NCR does not preclude the acquisition and/or maintenance of alternative appropriate behavior. Third, when NCR is combined with a responsedependent reinforcement schedule, response acquisition and/or maintenance will be lowest when the NCR component is most dense.

4 54 Conclusion It has been demonstrated that NCR is an effective tool for the treatment of severe behavior problems. The therapeutic effects are similar across behavioral function and are not lost when NCR is used in combination with responsedependent reinforcement schedules. As well, combining NCR with differential reinforcement does not preclude acquisition of or maintenance of appropriate behavior as long as the NCR component is not too dense. Thus, the answer to the question Does NCR reduce the effectiveness of those same reinforcers (i.e., functional reinforcers) in establishing or maintaining appropriate behavior? is a resounding, That depends. In behavioral parlance, it would be more appropriate to state that the effect NCR has on the effectiveness of reinforcers as they relate to appropriate behavior is a function of the NCR schedule density. Given this caveat, the use of combined NCR and response-contingent reinforcement schedules has potential advantages. In a treatment setting, such combined schedules accomplish a couple of goals. First, they allow for the acquisition or maintenance of alternative appropriate behavior. This goal addresses one of the drawbacks to the use of NCR: the lack of teaching appropriate alternative behavior. Second, the combination of NCR and response-dependent schedules might reduce some of the extinction-related phenomenon encountered by some differential reinforcement schedules. Combined schedules of this type also provide some interesting opportunities for ongoing research. From a conceptual standpoint, it would be interesting to evaluate response allocation under combined NCR and response-dependent schedules and determine whether such allocation is consistent with the predictions provided by the Matching Law. From a clinical standpoint, it would be interesting to determine what arrangement of such combined schedules allows for optimal appropriate response acquisition while still taking advantage of the benefits on a NCR schedule (e.g., reduced extinction-related responding). References Goh, H., Iwata, B. A., & DeLeon, I. G. (2000). Competition between noncontingent and contingent reinforcement schedules during response acquisition. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, Hagopian, L. P., Fisher, W. W., & Legacy, S. M. (1994). Schedule effects of noncontingent reinforcement on attention-maintained destructive behavior in identical quadruplets. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, Horner, R. D. (1980). The effects of an environmental enrichment program on the behavior of institutionalized profoundly retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, Marcus, B. A., & Vollmer, T. R. (1996). Combining noncontingent reinforcement and differential reinforcement schedules as treatment for aberrant behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, Piazza, C. C., Adelinis, J. D., Hanley, G. P., Goh, H., & Delia, M. D. (2000). An evaluation of the effects of matched stimuli on behaviors maintained by automatic reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, Reed, G. K., Ringdahl, J. E., Wacker, D. P., Barretto, A, & Andelman, M. S. (2005). The effects of fixed-time and contingent schedules of reinforcement on compliance and aberrant behavior. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26, Ringdahl, J. E., Vollmer, T. R., Marcus, B. A., & Roane, H. S. (1997). An analogue evaluation of environmental enrichment: The role of stimulus preference. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, Vollmer, T. R., Iwata, B. A., Zarcone, J. R., Smith, R. G., & Mazaleski, J. L. (1993). The role of attention in the treatment of attention-maintained self-injurious behavior: Noncontingent reinforcement and differential reinforcement of other behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, Vollmer, T. R. (2004). The concept of automatic reinforcement: Implications for behavioral research in developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 15,

5 NCR and Acquisition 55 Vollmer, T. R., Marcus, Bethany A., & Ringdahl, J. E. (1995). Noncontingent escape as treatment for self-injurious behavior maintained by negative reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, Vollmer, T. R., Ringdahl, J. E., Roane, H. S., & Marcus, B. A. (1997). Negative side effects of noncontingent reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30,