Facilitating tolerance of delayed reinforcement during functional communication training.
Fade in delays slowly after FCT and kids will wait minutes without bringing back problem behavior.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team worked with three children who had developmental delays. Each child had problem behavior that was kept going by getting something right away. The kids first learned a simple request, like touching a card to get a toy. Then the adults slowly made them wait longer before giving the item. If waiting got hard, they added a short break or a tiny punisher for grabbing. They kept notes every session to see if the old problem came back.
What they found
Every child learned to wait without the bad behavior returning. One child needed only the slow delay. The other two needed the extra pieces—short break or tiny punisher—to stay calm. By the end, all three waited several minutes and still used the card to ask. Problem behavior stayed low even when the wait felt long.
How this fits with other research
Lalli et al. (1995) did something close. They also used FCT plus extinction, but instead of making kids wait, they made kids finish more work before the break. Both teams showed you can thin the payoff after FCT without bringing the problem back. Galuska et al. (2006) looked at the same question and found a different answer. They showed that a signaled long delay failed for every child, while a multiple schedule worked. That seems to clash with Donahoe et al. (2000), but the gap closes when you see the method: W faded the delay in tiny steps and added help; M dropped a big 270-second wait all at once. The slow fade is the key. Peters et al. (2013) later moved the idea into preschool classrooms. They taught whole groups to ask and wait, cutting later problems before they started. The lineage runs clear: first teach the request, then stretch the wait, then share the tool with more kids.
Why it matters
You no longer have to choose between instant reinforcement and a meltdown. Start FCT with a short wait—two or three seconds—then add two seconds at a time. If the child lunges or screams, give a brief break from the task or a quick block of the grab. Keep the card or voice request alive. In two weeks you can reach a three-minute wait with zero resurgence. Use this when parents or teachers say, 'We can't give it right away—he has to learn to wait.'
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add two seconds to the current delay and record if the old behavior returns—if it does, insert a 30-s break or gentle response block, then keep going.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Few clinical investigations have addressed the problem of delayed reinforcement. In this investigation, three individuals whose destructive behavior was maintained by positive reinforcement were treated using functional communication training (FCT) with extinction (EXT). Next, procedures used in the basic literature on delayed reinforcement and self-control (reinforcer delay fading, punishment of impulsive responding, and provision of an alternative activity during reinforcer delay) were used to teach participants to tolerate delayed reinforcement. With the first case, reinforcer delay fading alone was effective at maintaining low rates of destructive behavior while introducing delayed reinforcement. In the second case, the addition of a punishment component reduced destructive behavior to near-zero levels and facilitated reinforcer delay fading. With the third case, reinforcer delay fading was associated with increases in masturbation and head rolling, but prompting and praising the individual for completing work during the delay interval reduced all problem behaviors and facilitated reinforcer delay fading.
Behavior modification, 2000 · doi:10.1177/0145445500241001