Enhancing the Effects of Extinction on Attention‐maintained Behavior Through Noncontingent Delivery of Attention or Stimuli Identified via a Competing Stimulus Assessment

Abstract

Recent research has shown that the noncontingent delivery of competing stimuli can effectively reduce rates of destructive behavior maintained by social-positive reinforcement, even when the contingency for destructive behavior remains intact. It may be useful, therefore, to have a systematic means for predicting which reinforcers do and do not compete successfully with the reinforcer that is maintaining destructive behavior. In the present study, we conducted a brief competing stimulus assessment in which noncontingent access to a variety of tangible stimuli (one toy per trial) was superimposed on a fixed-ratio 1 schedule of attention for destructive behavior for individuals whose behavior was found to be reinforced by attention during a functional analysis. Tangible stimuli that resulted in the lowest rates of destructive behavior and highest percentages of engagement during the competing stimulus assessment were subsequently used in a noncontingent tangible items plus extinction treatment package and were compared to noncontingent attention plus extinction and extinction alone. Results indicated that both treatments resulted in greater reductions in the target behavior than did extinction alone and suggested that the competing stimulus assessment may be helpful in predicting stimuli that can enhance the effects of extinction when noncontingent attention is unavailable.

Schedule Thinning Following Communication Training: Using Competing Stimuli to Enhance Tolerance to Decrements in Reinforcer Density

“…That is, the functional reinforcers for problem behavior (attention for Stephen and Matt and video games for James) were delivered contingent on problem behavior while the participant had the test stimulus and could obtain the reinforcement it produced concurrently. To date, only two other published studies have described the use of this type of assessment (Fisher et al, 2004;Fisher, O'Connor, Kurtz, DeLeon, & Gotjen, 2000). In those studies, Fisher and colleagues delivered attention contingent on problem behavior during the competing stimulus assessment after having determined that problem behavior was attention maintained.…”

“…Procedures used to examine the degree to which access to various stimuli displace problem behavior, relative to a nostimulus control condition, have recently been termed competing stimulus assessments (DeLeon, Rodriguez-Catter, Fisher, Delia, & Marhefka, 2000;Fisher, DeLeon, Rodriguez-Catter, & Keeney, 2004;Long, Hagopian, DeLeon, Marhefka, & Resau, in press). Several studies have demonstrated that noncontingent access to competing stimuli can effectively reduce problem behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement (Piazza, Fisher, Hanley, Hilker, & Derby, 1996;Ringdahl, Vollmer, Marcus, & Roane, 1997;Roane, Vollmer, Ringdahl, & Marcus, 1998;Shore, Iwata, DeLeon, Kahng, & Smith, 1997;Zhou, Goff, & Iwata, 2000).…”

“…It is presumed that stimuli that are associated with decreases in problem behavior produce reinforcement that competes with reinforcement that maintains problem behavior. Although much of this research has focused on problem behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement, it has been demonstrated this approach can enhance noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) as a treatment for attention-maintained behavior (Fisher, DeLeon, Rodriguez-Catter, & Keeney, 2004;Fisher, O'Connor, Kurtz, DeLeon, & Gotjen, 2000). In these two studies, the competing stimulus assessment involved providing access to one stimulus during each trial while attention was concurrently available contingent on problem behavior.…”

Treatment of Life-Threatening Pica with 5-Year Follow-up

“…First, measurement across treatment sessions and maintenance probes were not kept constant (percentage vs. rate); second, although there were anecdotal reports of continued discard responses after intervention (use of toolbox, use of typical garbage receptacles, and putting items behind furniture), staff did not record the frequency of discard responses during maintenance probes; third, treatment fidelity was not directly assessed during the intervention; fourth, preference assessment procedures did not assess the impact of the stimuli on the frequency of pica as in contemporary competing stimuli assessments (Fisher et al 2004); and fifth, some methodological issues with the functional analysis could have been improved upon (e.g. additional sessions to demonstrate stability following the initially increasing trend and longer/more alone sessions may have been a more compelling demonstration of the nonsocially mediated function of pica).…”

Evidence-Based Treatment of Behavioral Excesses and Deficits for Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders

“…Following demonstration of the effectiveness of NCR across a multiple baseline design for all clients, systematic schedule thinning problem behaviors were maintained at near zero rates when NCR was provided on a fixed 5-min schedule. Fisher et al (2004) compared the effect of NCR plus extinction on a fixed schedule to extinction alone in treating the severe selfinjurious, aggressive, and destructive behavior in four individuals (aged 5, 7, 9, and 33) with significant intellectual disability. Their results indicate clear differences between treatment sessions that provided NCR in the form of social attention or tangibles from those where extinction alone was used.…”