A comparison of accumulated and distributed reinforcement periods with children exhibiting escape‐maintained problem behavior

Abstract

Differential reinforcement is a common treatment for escape-maintained problem behavior in which compliance is reinforced on a fixed-ratio (FR) 1 schedule with brief access to positive and/or negative reinforcement. Recent research suggests some individuals prefer to complete longer work requirements culminating in prolonged (i.e. accumulated) reinforcement periods relative to brief (i.e. distributed) periods, but prolonged work exposure may evoke problem behavior and prevent compliance from contacting reinforcement when treating escapemaintained problem behavior. We exposed 3 children with escape-maintained problem behavior to both distributed (FR 1 resulting in 30 s of reinforcement) and accumulated (FR 15 resulting in 7.5 min of reinforcement) arrangements to compare their efficacy in maintaining low levels of problem behavior. We then assessed participants' preferences for these conditions in a concurrent-chains arrangement. Accumulated-reinforcement arrangements did not occasion additional problem behavior, but rather resulted in consistently lower levels of problem behavior for 2 of 3 participants. Participants demonstrated idiosyncratic preferences.

Accumulated and distributed response–reinforcer arrangements during the treatment of escape‐maintained problem behavior

“…DeLeon et al (2014) described this as a distributed reinforcement arrangement. This arrangement may lessen the aversiveness of the instructional context by keeping exposure to instruction brief and by ensuring frequent reinforcement of compliance (e.g., Fulton et al, 2020). The small magnitude of reinforcement may also prevent or delay satiation to the reinforcer for compliance.…”

“…Research has suggested several practical advantages associated with arranging accumulated reinforcement, such as increased task-completion rates, shorter overall task durations (Bukala et al, 2015;DeLeon et al, 2014), more rapid skill acquisition (e.g., Frank-Crawford et al, 2019;Kocher et al, 2015), and decreased problem behavior (e.g., Fulton et al, 2020;Robinson & St. Peter, 2019). Further, when provided a choice between accumulated and distributed reinforcement contingencies, many individuals have demonstrated a preference for accumulated reinforcement arrangements (e.g., Bukala et al, 2015;DeLeon et al, 2014), including individuals with escape-maintained problem behavior (e.g., Fulton et al, 2020). Robinson and St. Peter (2019) compared task completion and problem behavior under accumulated and distributed reinforcement arranged using fixed-ratio (FR) 1 schedules.…”

Increasing passive compliance to wearing a facemask in children with autism spectrum disorder

“…Mask Preference Assessment. For Roman, experimenters completed a concurrent chains preference assessment (see Fulton et al, 2020) for mask type before each experimental session following forced-exposure sessions during the initial baseline phase. For all experimental sessions, the experimenter initiated the session by presenting both mask types (loop mask or tie mask) on the table in front of Roman and saying, "Pick one."…”

Comparing paired‐stimulus and multiple‐stimulus concurrent‐chains preference assessments: Consistency, correspondence, and efficiency

“…Thus, the current study also included brief consumption periods (30 s) relative to prior studies. For example, Hanley et al (2005), Heal and Hanley (2007), and Fulton et al (2020) arranged 120-s, 180-s, and 600-s consumption periods, respectively. Experimenters equated consumption periods across both paired-item and multiple-stimulus assessment sessions in the current study.…”

“…These initial-link stimuli can then be presented in a manner similar to those of more traditional preference assessments, in which an approach response to the initial-link stimulus results in a reinforcer-consumption period (e.g., after selecting the image of playing basketball, the individual could then play basketball for a period of time). This approach has been used to assess individuals' preferences for behavioral interventions (Fulton et al, 2020;Luczynski and Hanley, 2010;Tiger, Hanley, & Heal, 2006) and teaching strategies (Halbur et al, 2020;Heal et al, 2009;Slocum & Tiger, 2011), among other complex events (Tiger, Hanley, & Hernandez, 2006).…”