A review of "noncontingent" reinforcement as treatment for the aberrant behavior of individuals with developmental disabilities.

Lancioni et al. (2000) wrote a story-style review. They looked at every paper that used noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) to stop problem behavior in people with developmental disabilities.

They grouped the studies by how the reinforcer was picked, how often it was given, and whether extinction was used at the same time.

The review showed NCR works best when you give the same reinforcer that was keeping the problem alive. Starting with a rich, fixed-time schedule and then thinning it keeps gains high.

They warned that thinning without extinction can let the old behavior pop back up.

Wilkinson et al. (1998) said the same thing two years earlier: match the function, start continuous, then thin. Lancioni et al. (2000) echoed those steps with more detail.

Nine years later Lancioni et al. (2009) upgraded the story. Their systematic review called NCR plus extinction “well-established,” moving the idea from “looks good” to “evidence-based.”

Phillips et al. (2017) tested 27 real cases. NCR alone worked for almost every socially-maintained case, but kids with automatic reinforcement needed extra help. This keeps the 2000 advice honest: NCR is strong, not magic.

You can trust NCR as a first-line tool when your FBA points to social reinforcement. Start with a fixed-time 30 s or 1 min schedule, deliver the matched reinforcer, and add extinction. Watch the data; if behavior is auto-reinforced, plan to layer in competing stimuli or other tactics. This move keeps treatment lean, safe, and evidence-based.