The Use of Contingency-Based Procedures to Promote Tolerance of Schedule Thinning for Hypothesized Multiply Maintained Problem Behavior

Zabala et al. (2022) worked with two children whose problem behavior was kept going by several reinforcers at once.

The team first taught each child a simple communication response to get those same reinforcers.

Then they started contingency-based schedule thinning. The child had to wait longer and longer, but could opt for an easy task any time the wait felt too hard.

Both kids quickly accepted longer waits before reinforcement.

Problem behavior stayed low while the communication response stayed strong.

The low-effort task switch acted like a pressure valve, letting the child stay in the program without melting down.

Ghaemmaghami et al. (2016) showed that contingency-based delays beat time-based delays when behavior is escape-only. Zabala adds a task switch and proves the idea still works when behavior is driven by many reinforcers, not just escape.

Hastings et al. (2001) and Capio et al. (2013) used signaled multiple schedules to thin reinforcement. Their method kept problem behavior low, but it was time-based. Zabala keeps the signals but makes the next step depend on the child’s choice, not the clock.

Davis et al. (2023) reviewed 401 thinning cases and warned most plans have never left the clinic. Zabala’s built-in task switch gives caregivers a practical safety move they can actually use at home.

If you run FCT and worry about thinning with multiply controlled behavior, try adding a child-controlled task switch. It gives the kid an easy out so you can push the delay further without tears. Start with a task the child already likes, keep the signal clear, and let the data tell you when to stretch the wait again.