The relative contributions of preference and functionality in noncontingent reinforcement schedules

Noncontingent reinforcement (NCR), the response-independent delivery of reinforcers, has been demonstrated to be an effective response suppression method for a variety of problem behaviors displayed by children. The purpose of the current study was to determine whether preference for specific reinforcers to another context led to greater response suppression through an experimental comparison of NCR with a functional reinforcer versus preferred stimuli. Two preschool-aged children with autism and tantrums maintained by tangible reinforcement participated. Preference values were evaluated through paired-choice and competing stimulus assessments. Three preferred stimuli were selected for NCR-Preferred experimental conditions, based on varied levels of preference (i.e., highest, lowest, moderate). The preference was confirmed to be nonfunctional through arbitrary reinforcement tests. Results indicated that NCR-Functional and NCR-Preferred had suppressive effects across participants, but the predetermined level of preference did not have an effect. Noncontingent Reinforcement iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements.ii Abstract.iii Chapter 1: Introduction.1 Functional Analysis and its Relevance to Behavior-Reduction Contingencies.2 Extinction and Punishment.4 Differential Reinforcement.7 Noncontingent Reinforcement.10 Behavioral Processes Responsible for Response Suppression in NCR.14 Arbitrary versus Functional Reinforcers in NCR.17 Chapter 2: Methods.23 Participants and Setting.23 Experimental Design.25 Response Definitions, Data Collection, and Interobserver Agreement.26 Materials.27 Procedures.27 Chapter 3: Results.34 Chapter 4: Discussion.45 References.55 Appendix A Human Subjects Review Committee Approval Letter.71 Appendix B Functional Analysis Screening Tool.72 Appendix C Informed Consent.73 Noncontingent Reinforcement v Apppendix D Data Sheet for Functional Analysis, Arbitary Reinforcement Tests, and NCR conditions.75 Appendix E Paired-Choice Preference Assessment Data Sheet.76 Appendix F Competing Stimulus Assessment Data Sheet.77 Noncontingent Reinforcement vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Results of the analogue functional analysis for Ethan, Chris, and Sarah.35 2 Results of the analogue functional analysis for Dylan, Harry, and Zeke.36 3 Results of the 16-item paired-choice assessment for Chris and Sarah.37 4 Results of the 16-item paired-choice assessment for Ethan and Zeke.38 5 Results from the competing stimulus assessments for Chris, Sarah, and Zeke.41 6 Results from the arbitrary reinforcement tests for Zeke, Sarah, and Chris.42 7 Results from NCR conditions for Sarah and Chris.44 Noncontingent Reinforcement 1 Chapter 1: Introduction Some children display disruptive and inappropriate behaviors such as tantrums, selfinjury, aggression, property destruction, and self-stimulatory stereotypic behaviors. Because these behaviors are sometimes harmful and often impede the educational and social development of the child and others in the child’s environment, it is imperative to develop the most effective strategies possible to reduce the frequency and severity of these behaviors. A variety of empirically validated response-reduction methods, based on operant theory, have emerged from the applied behavior analysis literature. These methods, collectively referred to as “contingency management,” include extinction, punishment, differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO), differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior (DRI), differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA), and noncontingent reinforcement (NCR). Functional analysis and assessment techniques, which are designed to identify the contingencies maintaining problem behaviors exhibited by individual children, are presumed to have increased precision and effectiveness of contingency-management procedures. However, for some behavior-altering procedures, especially those designed to reduce problem behavior without punishment, empirical support demonstrating the superiority of functionally-derived contingencies is lacking. The functional analysis methodology has enhanced a general understanding of how some behavior-reduction contingencies operate but in other cases has raised theoretical inconsistencies and failed to demonstrate strong pragmatic utility. This is particularly true in the context of NCR procedures, which will be the focus of the current study. Noncontingent Reinforcement 2 Functional Analysis and its Relevance to Behavior-Reduction Contingencies Skinner (1953, p. 35) first used the term functional analysis to emphasize that behavior is a function of reinforcement and associative contingencies, and he stressed the importance of collecting data to determine those contingencies. Historically, behaviorreduction contingency management techniques were based on nonquantitative anecdotal reports or descriptive analyses (Bijou, Peterson, & Ault, 1968) to identify the reinforcers presumed to be maintaining problem responses. Despite these shortcomings, such methods were usually sufficient to develop contingency management programs that effectively reduced behavior. For example, in one of the first successful applied demonstrations of extinction, Williams (1959) effectively suppressed an infant’s excessive crying at bedtime by having the parents ignore it. This application was presumably effective because the parents were sufficiently accurate in their reports of problem to allow the investigator to accurately guess that attention was the maintaining the infant’s crying. However, some researchers have reported that extinction and other similar procedures were not effective (e.g., Myers, 1975; Duker and Seys, 1983), probably due to inaccurate suppositions about the likely reinforcer or misidentification of the function of the response to be attention-maintained. It has been a common clinical misconception to assume that problem behavior is primarily attentionmaintained (Ducharme & Van Houten, 1994; Iwata, Vollmer, Zarcone, & Rodgers, 1993). It was not until the 1980s that the experimental method, termed functional analysis, was developed as a formal systematic practice for determining or verifying the contingencies maintaining a particular problem behavior. The basics of the functional analysis procedure were developed by Iwata and colleagues (1994) as an extension of well understood principles of experimental analysis of Noncontingent Reinforcement 3 behavior (Sidman, 1960) to the problem of identifying controlling variables in applied settings. In their early work, Iwata and colleagues needed to identify the function of selfinjurious behavior (SIB) in individuals with developmental disabilities. Their procedure involved the use of “alternating treatments” or “multiple schedule” experimental design, so that only one potential reinforcement contingency operated at any given time. To test if the target response was maintained by social positive reinforcement in the form of attention, an attention condition was run in which a therapist sat next to the child and ignored all responses unless the child engaged in the target response, at which time the therapist delivered attention (i.e., a brief reprimand). During the escape condition, a difficult task was presented and contingent on the target response, the therapist discontinued the task and provided a 30-second break. In the alone condition, the child was isolated in a room, simulating a barren environment with no social or external sensory stimulation, to determine if the target response was maintained by unknown ecological or sensory reinforcers. In addition, if parents or clinicians presumed that the maintaining reinforcer of the target behavior was access to a preferred tangible item, then a tangible condition was added to the standard procedure, during which the item is available but inaccessible unless the child engaged in the target response. A play condition served as the control condition, during which no demands were placed on the child, attention was continuously given, and preferred objects were noncontingently available, thus eliminating motivating operations for engaging in the target response. After the functional analysis was completed, data were graphed and the condition in which the target behavior occurred at the highest rate was inferred to be the main