Effects of noncontingent reinforcement on problem behavior and stimulus engagement: the role of satiation, extinction, and alternative reinforcement.
Keep preferred items freely available to slash problem behavior without using extinction.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Hagopian et al. (2000) tested noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) on four people with problem behavior.
They gave free access to fun items all session long.
No demands, no extinction, just toys and snacks within reach.
What they found
Problem behavior dropped to almost zero for every participant.
People kept playing with the items, so the items acted like built-in alternative reinforcement.
The study showed you can cut problem behavior without withholding reinforcement or using extinction.
How this fits with other research
Critchfield et al. (2003) extends this finding. They rotated new toys each day and kept self-injury near zero for a full year.
Reid et al. (2003) seems to contradict the result. Their VT schedule of preferred items made stereotypy harder to stop, not easier. The difference is schedule: P et al. used rich, continuous access while H et al. used lean, intermittent delivery.
Allison et al. (2012) applies the same idea to feeding treatment. NCR plus escape extinction worked as well as differential reinforcement and parents liked it better.
Why it matters
You can try continuous NCR first when problem behavior is strong and extinction is hard to run. Keep a box of varied, highly preferred items within arm's reach the whole session. Watch for satiation cues and swap items as needed. This gives you a low-stress option that protects rapport while you plan next steps.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Place a tray of three new highly preferred toys or snacks next to the client and record problem behavior for the entire session.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This study examined the effects of noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) with and without extinction on problem behavior and stimulus engagement (consumption of reinforcement) of 4 participants. Reductions in problem behavior using NCR have frequently been attributed to both satiation of the reinforcer and extinction. In the current study, aspects of the NCR treatment effects were difficult to explain based solely on either a satiation or an extinction account. Specifically, it was found that stimulus engagement remained high throughout the NCR treatment analysis, and that problem behavior was reduced to near-zero levels during NCR without extinction. The implications of these findings are discussed with respect to the satiation and extinction hypotheses frequently described in the applied literature. Findings from basic studies examining the effects of response-independent schedules are presented, and are used as the basis for a matching theory account of NCR-related effects. It is proposed that reductions in problem behavior observed during NCR interventions may be a function of the availability of alternative sources of reinforcement.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2000 · doi:10.1901/jaba.2000.33-433