The effects of fixed-time and contingent schedules of negative reinforcement on compliance and aberrant behavior.
Extra free breaks can undo DNRA gains if you make them too frequent.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team tested two ways to give escape breaks during DNRA treatment. Kids first earned breaks by finishing tasks. Later the staff added free breaks on a fixed-time clock.
They compared lean FT breaks and dense FT breaks. The goal was to see if extra free time would help or hurt compliance.
What they found
DNRA alone boosted compliance and cut problem behavior. Lean FT breaks kept these gains. Dense FT breaks washed the gains out.
Too much free time made kids work less. The schedule of extra breaks mattered as much as the breaks themselves.
How this fits with other research
Whitehouse et al. (2014) later showed the opposite picture. They gave FT reinforcers after DRA and wiped out resurgence. The key difference is timing: M et al. scheduled FT after the child learned the new skill, while K et al. layered FT during teaching.
Frank-Crawford et al. (2021) and Fulton et al. (2020) echo the escape theme. They found that big, less frequent breaks often beat tiny, steady ones. All three studies tell the same story: lean escape schedules protect hard-won gains.
Zangrillo et al. (2016) used chained schedules to thin escape during FCT. Like K et al., they showed you can stretch escape, but only if you do it carefully.
Why it matters
When you run DNRA for escape-maintained noncompliance, watch the clock. If you add extra breaks, keep them thinner than the breaks the child already earns. Try one free minute every ten minutes instead of every two. You will keep compliance high and still give the kid a breather.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Set any FT break at twice the current DNRA escape interval and watch compliance.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Prior research has suggested that fixed-time (FT) schedules of reinforcement do not necessarily preclude the acquisition of appropriate behavior (e.g., mands) when combined with differential reinforcement (DRA). These studies also note that dense FT schedules are more likely to interfere with DRA packages than lean FT schedules. In the current investigation, we examined whether similar findings would occur with FT schedules of negative reinforcement. Schedule analyses were conducted with two participants following functional analyses that identified escape from task demands as the maintaining variable for problem behavior. Differential negative reinforcement of alternative behavior (DNRA) was implemented first to establish behavioral control (decreased problem behavior and increased compliance). Breaks (negative reinforcement) were then concurrently delivered on a FT basis under either dense (at a greater rate than that obtained during DNRA alone) or lean (at a lower rate than that obtained during DNRA) reinforcement schedules. In general, results showed that FT escape did not preclude compliance when the FT schedule was lean, but treatment gains were significantly disrupted when dense FT schedules were superimposed.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2005 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2004.01.004