Competition between positive and negative reinforcement in the treatment of escape behavior.
Edible reinforcement beats break reinforcement for escape behavior — you can get compliance and reduce problem behavior without extinction.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Five kids who tried to escape work tasks joined the study.
Each child got two treatments in turn.
One treatment gave a small candy for finishing the task.
The other treatment let the child take a short break for finishing.
No one blocked escape tries — extinction was not used.
What they found
Candy won every time.
Kids worked more and acted out less when they got candy than when they got a break.
The better reinforcer beat the escape reinforcer, even without blocking escape.
How this fits with other research
Slocum et al. (2025) ran a bigger test with the kids and added escape extinction.
They still found edible treats beat break time, proving the 1999 result holds at scale.
Van Hanegem et al. (2014) showed the same thing in a different way.
They compared giving candy only after compliance versus giving candy on a timer.
Contingent candy again came out on top, backing up the 1999 finding.
Scott et al. (2024) looked across 266 feeding cases and found escape extinction plus other tactics works best.
This seems to clash with the 1999 study, but the 1999 paper never tested extinction — it only asked which reinforcer is stronger.
Why it matters
You can often reduce escape behavior just by picking a stronger reinforcer.
Before you add extinction or other heavy tactics, test a high-value edible.
If the child still bolts, then layer in escape extinction or other tools.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Swap the break for a bite-sized candy and see if compliance jumps before you add escape extinction.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
We compared the effects of reinforcing compliance with either positive reinforcement (edible items) or negative reinforcement (a break) on 5 participants' escape-maintained problem behavior. Both procedures were assessed with or without extinction. Results showed that compliance was higher and problem behavior was lower for all participants when compliance produced an edible item rather than a break. Treatment gains were achieved without the use of extinction. Results are discussed regarding the use of positive reinforcement to treat escape behavior.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1999 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1999.32-285