Bridging the gap between laboratory and applied research on response‐independent schedules
NCR likely calms behavior through antecedent cues, not accidental rewards, so audit the setting before you blame the schedule.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Ingvarsson et al. (2023) wrote a narrative review. They looked at lab and clinic studies on noncontingent reinforcement.
They asked: Do we need operant rules to explain why NCR cuts problem behavior? They say no—stimulus control and setting events matter more.
What they found
The team found that NCR often works before any response happens. Free reinforcers change the setting, not just the payoff.
They argue that antecedent, nonoperant processes do the heavy lifting. Adventitious reinforcement is only a side show.
How this fits with other research
Virues-Ortega et al. (2013) fit the story. Their single-case test showed extra alternative responses added little. The schedule itself, not response competition, cut behavior.
Green et al. (1999) also line up. Clients chose to skip problem behavior when free goodies arrived. Choice, not satiation, drove the drop.
Noel et al. (2016) show the clinic side. Preservice teachers used NCR in an after-school class and quickly calmed two students with autism. The review gives a why behind their quick win.
Lattal et al. (2022) share the same bridge-building goal. They urge animal trainers to test tactics in lab first; Ingvarsson urges the same check for NCR in human services.
Why it matters
If NCR works through setting cues, you should scan the room first. Ask: What signals the next free treat? Is the client already full? Tweak those cues before you tweak the schedule.
Next time behavior climbs during NCR, don’t just add more time. Check lighting, noise, or staff faces. Change the context, and you may fix the dip without a new plan.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Before your next NCR session, list three setting cues (light, noise, staff face) and change one to see if problem behavior drops sooner.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In 1948, Skinner described the behavior of pigeons under response‐independent schedules as “superstitious,” and proposed that the responses were reinforced by contiguous, adventitious food deliveries. Subsequently, response‐independent schedules have been of interest to both basic and applied researchers, first to understand the mechanisms involved, and later, as “noncontingent reinforcement” (NCR) to reduce undesirable behavior. However, the potential superstitious effects produced by these schedules have been challenged, with some researchers arguing that antecedent variables play a significant role. This paper examines the evidence for adventitious reinforcement from both laboratory and applied research, the results of which suggest that antecedent, nonoperant functions may be important in fully understanding the effects of NCR. We propose an applied‐basic research synthesis, in which attention to potential nonoperant functions could provide a more complete understanding of response‐independent schedules. We conclude with a summary of the applied implications of the nonoperant functions of NCR schedules.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2023 · doi:10.1002/jaba.965