Persistence of stereotypic behavior: examining the effects of external reinforcers.

The team gave kids with autism highly preferred toys on a variable-time schedule. They wanted to see if the free toys would make stereotypy harder to stop later.

The toys arrived no matter what the child did. After the child got used to the schedule, the researchers tried to disrupt the stereotypy.

Stereotypy became tougher to interrupt, not easier. The extra reinforcers gave the behavior more momentum.

In plain words, the free toys acted like fuel that kept the stereotypy running when challenges showed up.

Bai et al. (2016) saw the same fuel effect. When they reinforced an alternative task, the problem behavior also became more persistent. Both studies show extra reinforcement can backfire.

Watkins et al. (2014) looks like the opposite story. They paired enrichment with response cost and cut stereotypy right away. The key difference is the cost: they took something away while H et al. only gave things.

Craig et al. (2016) throws a curveball. Their data say behavioral momentum theory gets resurgence wrong. Taken together, the picture is clear: more reinforcement means more persistence, but the theory that explains it may not cover every relapse case.

Before you add noncontingent toys or music to a plan, ask what the reinforcer will fuel. If the goal is to reduce stereotypy, free preferred items alone can make your job harder. Pair them with response cost, extinction, or schedule thinning instead.