A method for identifying satiation versus extinction effects under noncontingent reinforcement schedules.
A quick extinction probe after NCR reveals whether satiation or extinction is cutting problem behavior—and the answer can change without warning.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Three children with developmental delay received noncontingent reinforcement (NCR). The team gave reinforcers on a fixed-time schedule, no matter what the child did.
After each NCR session, the therapist ran a five-minute extinction probe. No reinforcers were given. They watched if problem behavior popped up again.
What they found
NCR lowered problem behavior for every child. The quick extinction probe told the team why it worked.
Sometimes the child showed a brief burst of problem behavior when the probe started. That burst meant satiation was driving the drop. Other times, no burst appeared, so extinction was the active agent. The driver could switch mid-treatment.
How this fits with other research
Hanley et al. (1997) also hunted for the real agent behind behavior drops. They removed the adult who gave attention right after self-injury. Both papers show you must test, not guess, which mechanism is in play.
Nighbor et al. (2018) warn that keeping the same room cues across phases pumps up resurgence. Donahoe et al. (2000) add a new layer: even when NCR looks calm, a fast probe can reveal if satiation or extinction is guarding against that resurgence.
Hendry et al. (1969) found that earlier training can block new cues from gaining control. Together these studies say stimulus history matters before, during, and after any extinction-based plan.
Why it matters
You can run NCR and think the job is done, but the true engine can flip. A two-minute extinction check at the end of the next session tells you if satiation is still on duty or if extinction has taken over. Use that info to adjust schedule thickness, thinning speed, and relapse guards.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →End the next NCR session with a five-minute extinction probe; note any response burst to see if satiation still rules.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
We evaluated one method for determining whether response suppression under noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) is a function of satiation or extinction. Three individuals with developmental disabilities who engaged in self-injurious behavior (SIB) or aggression participated. Results of functional analyses indicated that their problem behavior was maintained by social-positive reinforcement. NCR procedures, individualized for each participant, were implemented in a multiple baseline across subjects design and were associated with decreases in all participants' problem behavior. Identification of the mechanism by which NCR produced these effects was based on examination of cumulative records showing response patterns during and immediately following each NCR session. Satiation during NCR should lead to a temporary increase in responding during the post-NCR (extinction) period due to a transition from the availability to the unavailability of reinforcement (satiation to deprivation). Alternatively, extinction during NCR should reveal no increase in responding during the extinction period because the contingency for the problem behavior would remain unchanged and the transition from satiation to deprivation conditions would be irrelevant. Results suggested that the operative mechanisms of NCR were idiosyncratic across the 3 participants and appeared to change during treatment for 1 of the participants.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2000 · doi:10.1901/jaba.2000.33-419