Noncontingent Reinforcement: Some Additional Comments

Vollmer, Timothy R.

doi:10.1901/jaba.1999.32-239

Cited by 22 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In essence, this condition represents the operant equivalent of the truly random control for respondent conditioning described by Rescorla (1967). With respect to positive reinforcement, the truly random control has been referred to as noncontingent reinforcement or responseindependent reinforcement (see Normand, 1999, andVollmer, 1999, for comments on terminology). Procedurally, this technique involves the presentation of a stimulus according to a schedule that is not influenced by responding; this separates the effects of stimulus presentation from those of the contingency.…”

Section: Noncontingent Reinforcementmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Reinforcement Control Procedures

Thompson

Iwata

2005

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A demonstration of the effects of reinforcement requires comparison of response rates in the presence of a contingency with those in another condition that controls for the influence of extraneous variables. We describe several control conditions that have been used in evaluating the effects of positive and negative reinforcement. The methodological rigor and practical utility of each type of control condition are discussed, and recommendations for the use of these conditions are presented.

show abstract

Section: Noncontingent Reinforcementmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Reinforcement Control Procedures

Thompson

Iwata

2005

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although this term has been criticized for being inaccurate and imprecise (for discussions of the terminology issues, see Poling & Normand, 1999;Vollmer, 1999), we use it here to maintain contact with the literature most relevant to the current investigation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One approach that has been used to offset these limitations has been to combine extinction with delivery of the consequent stimulus that historically reinforced problem behavior on a response-independent or timebased schedule, a treatment sometimes referred to as noncontingent reinforcement (NCR; Vollmer, Iwata, Zarcone, Smith, & Mazaleski, 1993). Although this term has been criticized for being inaccurate and imprecise (for discussions of the terminology issues, see Poling & Normand, 1999;Vollmer, 1999), we use it here to maintain contact with the literature most relevant to the current investigation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Fisher

DeLeon

Rodriguez-Catter

et al. 2004

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…In what has become a terminological tug-of-war with applied behavior analysts, both Zeiler (1972) and Lattal and Poling (1981) argued against describing responseindependent events as ''noncontingent reinforcement'' (cf. Poling & Normand, 1999;Vollmer, 1999). And yet, all of these distinctions persist.…”

Section: Logical Inversion Empirical Quagmirementioning

confidence: 99%

And yet … : Further comments on distinguishing positive and negative reinforcement

Lattal

2006

BEHAV ANALYST

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Noncontingent Reinforcement: Some Additional Comments

Cited by 22 publications

References 5 publications

A Review of Reinforcement Control Procedures

A Review of Reinforcement Control Procedures

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

And yet … : Further comments on distinguishing positive and negative reinforcement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About