Contingencies promote delay tolerance

Four kids with developmental disabilities got FCT for problem behavior. Each child learned to ask for a break instead of hitting or screaming.

Then the team compared two ways to stretch the wait time. In one, the child had to wait longer only after asking nicely. In the other, the wait grew no matter what the child did.

When the delay hinged on good communication, problem behavior stayed low. When the delay ran on a clock, problem behavior bounced back up.

Kids also kept asking nicely and followed adult directions better under the first plan.

Fuhrman et al. (2016) also kept problem behavior low during FCT, but they used a mixed schedule instead of a delay. Both papers show the rule: tie reinforcement to the child’s action, not to the clock.

Ghaemmaghami et al. (2018) took the next step. After kids could wait, they shaped simple requests into longer sentences. The 2016 study gives the safe starting point; the 2018 paper shows where to go next.

Fritz et al. (2017) looks like a clash—they thinned reinforcement without extinction and still won. The trick: they used noncontingent food plus DRA, not FCT delays. Different tool, same goal, no real fight.

If you run FCT, stop using fixed-time delays. Make the child wait longer only after a good request. You will see less problem behavior and keep the communication you just taught. One small rule change, big payoff.