Meta-analysis of noncontingent reinforcement effects on problem behavior.

The team pooled every single-case NCR study they could find. They looked at how much problem behavior dropped when adults or kids got free reinforcers on a set schedule.

They compared functional reinforcers (the ones that matched the behavior’s purpose) with nonfunctional ones. They also checked if thinning the schedule later hurt the gains.

Problem behavior fell hard. The average drop was very large.

Functional reinforcers worked best. Schedule thinning barely touched the good results.

Mueller et al. (2000) already showed that variable-time NCR works as well as fixed-time. The 2015 meta backs them up and adds power in numbers.

Verriden et al. (2019) starts with NCR plus DRA, sees little change, then adds a punisher. That study does not fight the meta; it just shows NCR can need a boost when behavior is automatically reinforced.

Jones et al. (2022) warns that 80% integrity can break NCR. The meta proves NCR works, but Jones tells us to guard the dose carefully.

Jessel et al. (2018) reached 90% drops with FCT plus thinning. Their result mirrors the meta: thinning is safe when you pair it with solid reinforcement logic.

You now have a green light to use NCR with confidence. Pick the functional reinforcer, start rich, then thin without fear. Watch integrity like Jones urges, and add a punisher only if the free reinforcers stall.