Some effects of response independent reinforcers in multiple schedules.

Researchers set up two schedule components side by side. One paid off only when the bird pecked. The other paid off on a timer no matter what the bird did. They watched how the extra 'free' food changed peck rates in both parts. They also ran quick timer-only probes to see if past training mattered.

When free food ran in just one component, pecking in that part dropped. When free food ran in both parts, total pecking fell. But a short burst of free food during extinction made pecking jump back up. The size of the jump tracked what the bird had learned before.

Coe et al. (1997) later used fixed-time food instead of variable-time and saw the same up-and-down pattern. The 1971 bird data and the 1997 bird data line up: non-contingent food can either hurt or help responding depending on the layout.

Adkins et al. (1997) showed that a recent DRH or DRL history skews current VI rates. That backs the 1971 point: what the animal just lived through sets how it reacts to free reinforcers.

Lander et al. (1968) proved that birds match their pecks to the payoff ratio across components. The 1971 paper adds a twist: drop in timer food and the matching rule gets bent because the 'payoff' no longer needs a peck.

Your non-contingent reinforcement program can either calm problem behavior or accidentally feed it. Check which component you put the free reinforcer in and what the client has learned before. If the child just finished dense DRL teaching, brief NCR might spike responding. If the child is in extinction, a quick NCR burst could revive the old rate. Run a probe first and watch the numbers.