Further Evaluation of the Use of Multiple Schedules for Behavior Maintained by Negative Reinforcement.

Campos et al. (2017) tested two children who hit or bit to get out of work.

First the kids learned a simple sign for "break." Then the team set up a two-part schedule.

In one part every request won a break. In the other part no requests worked. The parts looked the same, so the kids had to notice the hidden rule.

Problem behavior stayed low the whole time. Good news.

But neither child learned to ask for breaks only when breaks were available. The mand never came under stimulus control. Mixed result.

Miller et al. (2022) ran almost the same setup and got big, fast drops in destructive behavior. They added a quick extinction test and a fading game. Their tweak supersedes the 2017 method.

Boyle et al. (2021) also saw weak discrimination during thinning. They tried natural versus artificial cues. Only some kids caught on. The pattern matches Claudia et al.—schedule thinning alone is not enough.

Rivera et al. (2023) moved the idea into a home chore. They used a chained schedule and parent coaches. One six-year-old dumped trash with zero fits. Their extension shows the plan can work if you pick the right schedule and setting.

You can keep escape behavior low with a multiple schedule after FCT, but do not expect the child to know when to ask. Add clear stimuli, probe discrimination early, and be ready to fade contingencies faster. Try the Miller 2022 extinction-plus-fading probe next time you thin.