Superimposition of response-independent reinforcement.
Free reinforcement usually cuts response rates, but low-rate freebies can sometimes raise them—watch your baseline.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Burgess et al. (1986) wrote a narrative review. They pulled together earlier lab work on superimposed reinforcement.
The focus was response-independent (free) reinforcement added to existing schedules. The goal was to see when it helps or hurts baseline responding.
What they found
Most of the time, free reinforcement lowered response rates.
Low-rate free reinforcement sometimes raised rates. Schedules that paid for not responding produced the biggest drops.
How this fits with other research
Rincover et al. (1975) showed the same free food had opposite effects: pigeons pecked more, rats pressed less. The review uses this to warn that species and baseline matter.
Rogers-Warren et al. (1976) found free reinforcers flattened the FI scallop. The review folds this in as another example of schedule interaction.
Wetherington (1979) showed richer reinforcement on one key suppressed responding on the other. The review treats this as an early sign that extra reinforcers can depress behavior.
Together, the papers paint a consistent picture: added free reinforcement usually hurts baseline response, but the exact effect depends on schedule, species, and signaling.
Why it matters
When you add noncontingent reinforcement to reduce problem behavior, watch the data closely. If the child’s target skill starts to drop, the free reinforcers may be at fault. Try thinning the NCR schedule or adding response requirements to protect the skill you want to keep.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Graph your client’s target responses after each NCR delivery—if rates fall, thin the schedule.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Studies that have superimposed response-independent reinforcement (or reinforcers scheduled by contingencies placed on the absence of responding) upon conventional response-dependent schedules are reviewed. In general, providing alternative sources of reinforcement reduced response rates below the levels observed when alternative reinforcement was absent. However, response-rate elevation was sometimes found, particularly when rates of superimposed response-independent reinforcement were low. Superimposition of schedules providing reinforcers contingent on the absence of responding usually produced more severe response-rate decrements than superimposition of response-independent reinforcement. A variant of Herrnstein's equation, which assumes that some of the alternative reinforcers function as if they were delivered by baseline response-dependent source of reinforcement, is in qualitative agreement with the overall body of results obtained, and can predict both increases and decreases in response rate as resulting from superimposed reinforcers.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1986 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1986.45-75