Noncontingent reinforcement, alternative reinforcement, and the matching law: a laboratory demonstration.
Noncontingent reinforcement shrinks problem behavior but can accidentally grow new behaviors—count both sides of the equation.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Matson et al. (2004) built a lab model of noncontingent reinforcement (NCR). They wanted to see if the matching law still holds when the reinforcer is free.
They set up two response options. One produced problem behavior. The other produced a safe alternative. Reinforcers were delivered on a fixed-time schedule no matter what the participant did.
What they found
Free reinforcers cut problem behavior. They also raised alternative behavior. The shift followed the same math as the matching law.
In plain words, the brain still counts the pay-off even when the pay-off is not earned.
How this fits with other research
Oliver et al. (2002) showed the matching law works for severe problem behavior in children. Matson et al. (2004) moved the test into a clean lab and added NCR. Together they show the rule holds in both messy homes and tidy cages.
Hamm et al. (1978) proved the law works for both rewards and punishers. Matson et al. (2004) now show it also works for rewards that arrive by accident. The law keeps expanding its turf.
Whitehouse et al. (2014) warned that food-induced background activities can bend the curve. Matson et al. (2004) give a live demo: adventitious reinforcement of alternative acts is one of those bending forces.
Why it matters
When you use NCR to kill problem behavior, watch the other responses too. The client may start doing new behaviors that quietly collect the free reinforcers. Track both the target and the alternatives each session. If the math starts to drift, adjust the schedule or add contingency before the new behavior locks in.
Get CEUs on This Topic — Free
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Add a second data line on your sheet for any new responses that pop up during NCR.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Basic researchers, but not most applied researchers, have assumed that the behavior-decelerating effects of noncontingent reinforcement result at least partly from adventitious reinforcement of competing behaviors. The literature contains only sketchy evidence of these effects because few noncontingent reinforcement studies measure alternative behaviors. A laboratory model is presented in which concurrent schedules of contingent reinforcement were used to establish a "target" and an "alternative" behavior. Imposing noncontingent reinforcement decreased target behavior rates and increased alternative behavior rates, outcomes that were well described by the standard quantitative account of alternative reinforcement, the generalized matching law. These results suggest that adventitious reinforcement of alternative behaviors can occur during noncontingent reinforcement interventions, although the range of conditions under which this occurs remains to be determined in future studies. As an adjunct to applied studies, laboratory models permit easy measurement of alternative behaviors and parametric manipulations needed to answer many research questions.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2004 · doi:10.1901/jaba.2004.37-249