Individual and combined effects of noncontingent reinforcement and response blocking on automatically reinforced problem behavior

Saini et al. (2016) compared three ways to stop problem behavior that happens for its own built-in payoff.

They used an alternating-treatments design. Sessions rotated among NCR alone, response blocking alone, and the two together.

The goal was to see which package cut the behavior and kept kids playing with toys.

Only the pair of NCR plus blocking gave big, lasting drops in problem behavior.

Each part by itself did little. With the pair, toy play stayed high and the behavior stayed low.

Carr et al. (2002) ran a similar test years earlier. They also saw that NCR or blocking alone failed, while the pair worked for object mouthing.

Capio et al. (2013) looked at 14 children with hand mouthing. They started with NCR alone and added blocking only if needed. Most kids did fine with just NCR, which seems to clash with Saini’s “pair always” result. The difference: Saini tested all kids under all conditions, while M used a step-up plan.

MShawler et al. (2021) later borrowed the same pair to stop mask removal in hospital patients. The combo again helped most clients, showing the idea travels to new skills.

If a client’s problem behavior feeds itself, do not settle for NCR or blocking alone. Run a quick probe of both together. If the behavior drops and play rises, you have an easy, pill-free plan that has now worked across decades, topographies, and settings. Start combined, then fade the blocking when safe.