Noncontingent reinforcement: Arbitrary versus maintaining reinforcers for escape‐maintained problem behavior
Arbitrary edibles can cut escape behavior without extinction, but only for some clients—test both reinforcers first.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team tested NCR for escape behavior in four kids.
They gave breaks or edibles on a fixed schedule.
No extinction was used.
They compared the escape break (the real reinforcer) against candy (an arbitrary one).
What they found
Two kids did well with either reinforcer.
One kid needed extinction added to see gains.
One kid only improved with the real break, not candy.
So arbitrary edibles can work, but not for everyone.
How this fits with other research
Dallery et al. (2013) also compared noncontingent vs. contingent rewards.
They saw short-term gains that faded when vouchers stopped.
This matches Newman et al. (2021): NCR alone may not last.
Bondy et al. (1976) showed edibles can be faded to social praise.
That hints you might later swap candy for attention, but Newman did not test this step.
Hackenberg (2018) reminds us to pick backup reinforcers with a clear taxonomy.
Edible vs. escape is one more choice in that list.
Why it matters
Before you run NCR for escape behavior, probe both the real break and an arbitrary edible.
If the edible works, you save instructional time.
If it fails, add extinction or stick with the break.
One quick probe can save weeks of guesswork.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run a 5-minute probe: give candy on a fixed schedule and count problem behavior, then repeat with the usual break and compare.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) involves the delivery of maintaining reinforcers on a time-dependent schedule and often includes extinction. However, arbitrary reinforcers may be equally efficacious during NCR without extinction for treating escape-maintained problem behavior. The purpose of this study was to extend previous research on NCR by evaluating the relative efficacy of NCR without extinction and comparing maintaining versus arbitrary reinforcers for 4 individuals with escape-maintained problem behavior. Two different NCR conditions, NCR using the maintaining reinforcer (escape) and NCR using an arbitrary reinforcer (an edible), were evaluated using multielement and reversal designs. Treatment effects varied across participants. Results for 2 participants showed a reduction in problem behavior during NCR without extinction with both the arbitrary and maintaining reinforcers. For 1 participant, results showed a reduction in problem behavior with both the arbitrary and maintaining reinforcers only when extinction was added to NCR. For the 4th participant, the maintaining reinforcer was effective during NCR without extinction, but the arbitrary reinforcer was ineffective.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2021 · doi:10.1002/jaba.821