Competition between noncontingent and contingent reinforcement schedules during response acquisition.
Thin dense NCR first or you risk blocking the acquisition of replacement mands under DRA.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team mixed two schedules at once. They gave free reinforcers on a dense noncontingent schedule while also asking for mands on a DRA schedule.
They wanted to see if kids would still learn to ask for items when goodies already came free.
What they found
Free goodies stopped self-injury cold, but asking hardly showed up.
When they thinned the free-goodie schedule and kept DRA the same, kids finally started to mand and SIB stayed low.
How this fits with other research
Ward et al. (2021) extends this idea. They started with one omnibus mand instead of dense NCR. Kids still cut problem behavior and later learned specific mands with no block.
Goodwin et al. (2012) adds a warning: if you probe mands right after free access, you may think the skill is gone. Wait until the reinforcer is wanted again.
Together the three studies draw a road map: either start lean on free access or thin it fast, then check mands only when the MO is strong.
Why it matters
If you run dense NCR plus DRA together, thin the NCR first. Keep the DRA requirement steady. This simple order lets the child feel the need to ask while problem behavior stays down.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Cut your NCR interval by half and keep the mand requirement the same; watch if requests rise.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
We examined the extent to which noncontingent reinforcement (NCR), when used as treatment to reduce problem behavior, might interfere with differential reinforcement contingencies designed to strengthen alternative behavior. After conducting a functional analysis to identify the reinforcers maintaining 2 participants' self-injurious behavior (SIB), we delivered those reinforcers under dense NCR schedules. We delivered the same reinforcers concurrently under differential-reinforcement-of-alternative-behavior (DRA) contingencies in an attempt to strengthen replacement behaviors (mands). Results showed that the NCR plus DRA intervention was associated with a decrease in SIB but little or no increase in appropriate mands. In a subsequent phase, when the NCR schedule was thinned while the DRA schedule remained unchanged, SIB remained low and mands increased. These results suggest that dense NCR schedules may alter establishing operations that result in not only suppression of problem behavior but also interference with the acquisition of appropriate behavior. Thus, the strengthening of socially appropriate behaviors as replacements for problem behavior during NCR interventions might best be achieved if the NCR schedule is first thinned.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2000 · doi:10.1901/jaba.2000.33-195