Noncontingent reinforcement

Effects of satiation versus choice responding

Wayne W Fisher, Rachel H. Thompson, Iser G. Deleon, Cathleen C Piazza, David E. Kuhn, Vanessa Rodriguez-Catter, John D. Adelinis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Recent research findings suggest that the initial reductive effects of noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) schedules on destructive behavior result from the establishing effects of an antecedent stimulus (i.e., the availability of 'free' reinforcement) rather than extinction. A number of authors have suggested that these antecedent effects result primarily from reinforcer satiation, but an alternative hypothesis is that the individual attempts to access contingent reinforcement primarily when noncontingent reinforcement is unavailable, but chooses not to access contingent reinforcement when noncontingent reinforcement is available. If the satiation hypothesis is more accurate, then the reductive effects of NCR should increase over the course of a session, especially for denser schedules of NCR, and should occur during both NCR delivery and the NCR inter-reinforcement interval (NCR IRI). If the choice hypothesis is more accurate, then the reductive effects of NCR should be relatively constant over the course of a session for both denser and leaner schedules of NCR and should occur almost exclusively during the NCR interval (rather than the NCR IRI). To evaluate these hypotheses, we examined within-session trends of destructive behavior with denser and leaner schedules of NCR (without extinction), and also measured responding in the NCR interval separate from responding in the NCR IRI. Reductions in destructive behavior were mostly due to the participants choosing not to access contingent reinforcement when NCR was being delivered and only minimally due to reinforcer satiation. Copyright (C) 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)411-427
Number of pages17
JournalResearch in Developmental Disabilities
Volume20
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 1999

Fingerprint

Satiation
Reinforcement Schedule
Reinforcement (Psychology)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Clinical Psychology
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology

Cite this

Noncontingent reinforcement : Effects of satiation versus choice responding. / Fisher, Wayne W; Thompson, Rachel H.; Deleon, Iser G.; Piazza, Cathleen C; Kuhn, David E.; Rodriguez-Catter, Vanessa; Adelinis, John D.

In: Research in Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 20, No. 6, 01.11.1999, p. 411-427.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Fisher, Wayne W ; Thompson, Rachel H. ; Deleon, Iser G. ; Piazza, Cathleen C ; Kuhn, David E. ; Rodriguez-Catter, Vanessa ; Adelinis, John D. / Noncontingent reinforcement : Effects of satiation versus choice responding. In: Research in Developmental Disabilities. 1999 ; Vol. 20, No. 6. pp. 411-427.
@article{fc6d60ddd6de4f9e9b9946c4815a1d7d,
title = "Noncontingent reinforcement: Effects of satiation versus choice responding",
abstract = "Recent research findings suggest that the initial reductive effects of noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) schedules on destructive behavior result from the establishing effects of an antecedent stimulus (i.e., the availability of 'free' reinforcement) rather than extinction. A number of authors have suggested that these antecedent effects result primarily from reinforcer satiation, but an alternative hypothesis is that the individual attempts to access contingent reinforcement primarily when noncontingent reinforcement is unavailable, but chooses not to access contingent reinforcement when noncontingent reinforcement is available. If the satiation hypothesis is more accurate, then the reductive effects of NCR should increase over the course of a session, especially for denser schedules of NCR, and should occur during both NCR delivery and the NCR inter-reinforcement interval (NCR IRI). If the choice hypothesis is more accurate, then the reductive effects of NCR should be relatively constant over the course of a session for both denser and leaner schedules of NCR and should occur almost exclusively during the NCR interval (rather than the NCR IRI). To evaluate these hypotheses, we examined within-session trends of destructive behavior with denser and leaner schedules of NCR (without extinction), and also measured responding in the NCR interval separate from responding in the NCR IRI. Reductions in destructive behavior were mostly due to the participants choosing not to access contingent reinforcement when NCR was being delivered and only minimally due to reinforcer satiation. Copyright (C) 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd.",
author = "Fisher, {Wayne W} and Thompson, {Rachel H.} and Deleon, {Iser G.} and Piazza, {Cathleen C} and Kuhn, {David E.} and Vanessa Rodriguez-Catter and Adelinis, {John D.}",
year = "1999",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0891-4222(99)00022-0",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "20",
pages = "411--427",
journal = "Research in Developmental Disabilities",
issn = "0891-4222",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Noncontingent reinforcement

T2 - Effects of satiation versus choice responding

AU - Fisher, Wayne W

AU - Thompson, Rachel H.

AU - Deleon, Iser G.

AU - Piazza, Cathleen C

AU - Kuhn, David E.

AU - Rodriguez-Catter, Vanessa

AU - Adelinis, John D.

PY - 1999/11/1

Y1 - 1999/11/1

N2 - Recent research findings suggest that the initial reductive effects of noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) schedules on destructive behavior result from the establishing effects of an antecedent stimulus (i.e., the availability of 'free' reinforcement) rather than extinction. A number of authors have suggested that these antecedent effects result primarily from reinforcer satiation, but an alternative hypothesis is that the individual attempts to access contingent reinforcement primarily when noncontingent reinforcement is unavailable, but chooses not to access contingent reinforcement when noncontingent reinforcement is available. If the satiation hypothesis is more accurate, then the reductive effects of NCR should increase over the course of a session, especially for denser schedules of NCR, and should occur during both NCR delivery and the NCR inter-reinforcement interval (NCR IRI). If the choice hypothesis is more accurate, then the reductive effects of NCR should be relatively constant over the course of a session for both denser and leaner schedules of NCR and should occur almost exclusively during the NCR interval (rather than the NCR IRI). To evaluate these hypotheses, we examined within-session trends of destructive behavior with denser and leaner schedules of NCR (without extinction), and also measured responding in the NCR interval separate from responding in the NCR IRI. Reductions in destructive behavior were mostly due to the participants choosing not to access contingent reinforcement when NCR was being delivered and only minimally due to reinforcer satiation. Copyright (C) 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd.

AB - Recent research findings suggest that the initial reductive effects of noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) schedules on destructive behavior result from the establishing effects of an antecedent stimulus (i.e., the availability of 'free' reinforcement) rather than extinction. A number of authors have suggested that these antecedent effects result primarily from reinforcer satiation, but an alternative hypothesis is that the individual attempts to access contingent reinforcement primarily when noncontingent reinforcement is unavailable, but chooses not to access contingent reinforcement when noncontingent reinforcement is available. If the satiation hypothesis is more accurate, then the reductive effects of NCR should increase over the course of a session, especially for denser schedules of NCR, and should occur during both NCR delivery and the NCR inter-reinforcement interval (NCR IRI). If the choice hypothesis is more accurate, then the reductive effects of NCR should be relatively constant over the course of a session for both denser and leaner schedules of NCR and should occur almost exclusively during the NCR interval (rather than the NCR IRI). To evaluate these hypotheses, we examined within-session trends of destructive behavior with denser and leaner schedules of NCR (without extinction), and also measured responding in the NCR interval separate from responding in the NCR IRI. Reductions in destructive behavior were mostly due to the participants choosing not to access contingent reinforcement when NCR was being delivered and only minimally due to reinforcer satiation. Copyright (C) 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032738057&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032738057&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0891-4222(99)00022-0

DO - 10.1016/S0891-4222(99)00022-0

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 411

EP - 427

JO - Research in Developmental Disabilities

JF - Research in Developmental Disabilities

SN - 0891-4222

IS - 6

ER -