Noncontingent reinforcement, alternative reinforcement, and the matching law: A laboratory demonstration

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 249-265

  Ecott, Cheryl L ^a,c   Critchfield, Thomas S ^b  

^a Advoserv Inc   (United States)

^b ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Illinois State University ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Adventitious reinforcement; Alternative reinforcement; College students; Noncontingent reinforcement; Response independent reinforcement

Indexed keywords

EID: 7044224787     PISSN: 00218855     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1901/jaba.2004.37-249     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Bacotti, A. V. (1978). Responding under schedules combining response-dependent and response-independent shock delivery. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 29, 267-272.
2. Baum, W. M. (1974). On two types of deviation from the matching law: Bias and undermatching. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 231-242.
3. Baum, W. M., & Rachlin, H. C. (1969). Choice as time allocation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 861-874.
4. Brownstein, A. J. (1971). Concurrent schedules of response-independent reinforcement: Duration of a reinforcing stimulus. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 15, 211-214.
5. Brownstein, A. J., & Pliskoff, S. S. (1968). Some effects of relative reinforcement rate and change-over delay in response-independent concurrent schedules of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 11, 683-688.
6. Carr, J. E. (1996). On the use of the term "noncontingent reinforcement." Journal of Behavior Analysis and Therapy, 1, 33-37.
7. Carr, J. E., Bailey, J. S., Ecott, C. L., Lucker, K. D., & Weil, T. M. (1998). On the effects of noncontingent delivery of differing magnitudes of reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 313-321.
8. Carr, J. E., Kellum, K. K., & Chong, I. M. (2001). The reductive effects of noncontingent reinforcement: Fixed-time versus variable-time schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 505-509.
9. Catania, A. C. (1962). Independence of concurrent responding maintained by interval schedules of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 5, 175-184.
10. Catania, A. C. (1998). Learning (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
11. Critchfield, T. S. (2002). Evaluating the function of applied behavior analysis: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 423-426.
12. Critchfield, T. S., & Magoon, M. A. (2001). On the differential impact of positive and negative reinforcement. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 19, 16-18.
13. Critchfield, T. S., Paletz, E. M., MacAleese, K., & Newland, M. C. (2003). Punishment in human choice: Director competitive suppression? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 80, 1-27.
14. Critchfield, T. S., Schlund, M., & Ecott, C. L. (2000). A procedure for using bonus course credit to establish points as reinforcers for human subjects. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 18, 15-18.
15. Davison, M., & Hunter, I. W. (1976). Performance on variable-interval schedules arranged singly and concurrently. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 32, 233-242.
16. Davison, M., & Nevin, J. A. (1999). Stimuli, reinforcers, and behavior: An integration. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 71, 439-482.
17. Ecott, C. L., Foate, B. A. L., Taylor, B., & Critchfield, T. S. (1999). Further evaluation of reinforcer magnitude effects in noncontingent schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 529-532.
18. Fischer, S. M., Iwata, B. A., & Mazaleski, J. L. (1997). Noncontingent delivery of arbitrary reinforcers as treatment for self-injurious behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 239-249.
19. Fisher, W. W., O'Connor, J. T., Kurtz, P. F., DeLeon, I. G., & Gotjen, D. L. (2000). The effects of noncontingent delivery of high- and low-preference stimuli on attention-maintained destructive behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 79-83.
20. Fisher, W. W., Thompson, R. H., DeLeon, I. G., Piazza, C. C., Kuhn, D. E., Rodriguez-Catter, V., et al. (1999). Noncontingent reinforcement: Effects of satiation versus choice responding. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 20, 411-427.
21. Fleshler, M., & Hoffman, H. S. (1962). A progression for generating variable-interval schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 5, 529-530.
22. Hagopian, L. P., Crockett, J. L., van Stone, M., DeLeon, I., & Bowman, L. (2000). Effects of noncontingent reinforcement on problem behavior and stimulus engagement: The role of satiation, extinction, and alternative reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 433-449.
23. Hagopian, L. P., Fisher, W. W., & Legacy, S. M. (1994). Schedule effects of noncontingent reinforcement on attention-maintained destructive behavior in identical quadruplets. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 317-325.
24. Henton, W. W., & Iversen, I. H. (1978). Classical conditioning and operant conditioning. New York: Springer-Verlag.
25. Herrnstein, R. J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 267-272.
26. Innis, A., Lane, S. D., Miller, E. R., & Critchfield, T. S. (1998). Stimulus equivalence: Effects of a default-response option on emergence of untrained stimulus relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 70, 87-102.
27. Kahng, S., Iwata, B. A., Thompson, R. H., & Hanley, G. P. (2000). A method for identifying satiation versus extinction effects under noncontingent reinforcement schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 419-432.
28. Kollins, S. H., Newland, M. C., & Critchfield, T. S. (1997). Human sensitivity to reinforcement in operant choice: How much do consequences matter? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 208-220. Erratum: Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 431.
29. Kollins, S. H., Newland, M. C., & Critchfield, T. S. (1997). Human sensitivity to reinforcement in operant choice: How much do consequences matter? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 208-220. Erratum: Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 431.
30. Lachter, G. D., Cole, B. K., & Schoenfeld, W. N. (1971). Response rate under varying frequency of non-contingent reinforcement. Journal of the Experiemental Analysis of Behavior, 15, 233-236.
31. Lane, S. D., Clow, J. K., Innis, A., & Critchfield, T. S. (1998). Generalization of crossmodal stimulus equivalence classes: Operant processes as components in human category formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 70, 267-279.
32. Lane, S. D., & Critchfield, T. S. (1998). Increasing the generativity of identity-based procedures for establishing arbitrary conditional relations. The Psychological Record, 48, 457-479.
33. Lattal, K. A. (1974). Combinations of response-reinforcer dependence and independence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 357-362.
34. Lattal, K. A. (1995). Contingency and behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 18, 209-224.
35. Lattal, K. A., & Abreu-Rodrigues, J. (1997). Response-independent events in the behavior stream. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 375-398.
36. Lattal, K. A., & Doepke, K. J. (2001). Correspondence as conditional stimulus control: Insights from experiments with pigeons. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 127-144.
37. Lindberg, J. S., Iwata, B. A., Roscoe, E. M., Worsdell, A. S., & Hanley, G. P. (2003). Treatment efficacy of noncontingent reinforcement during brief and extended application. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 1-19.
38. Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. New York: Wiley.
39. Mace, F. C. (1994). Basic research needed for stimulating the development of behavioral technologies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 61, 529-550.
40. Madden, G. J. (2000). A behavioral economics primer. In W. K. Bickel & R. E. Vuchinich (Eds.), Reframing health behavior change with behavioral economics (pp. 3-26). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
41. Madden, G. J., & Perone, M. (1999). Human sensitivity to concurrent schedules of reinforcement: Effects of observing schedule-correlated stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 71, 303-318.
42. Madden, G. J., & Perone, M. (2003). Effects of alternative reinforcement on human behavior: The source does matter. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 79, 193-206.
43. McDowell, J. J. (1982). The importance of Herrnstein's mathematical statement of the law of effect for behavior therapy. American Psychologist, 37, 771-779.
44. McDowell, J. J. (1989). Matching theory in natural human environments. The Behavior Analyst, 11, 95-108.
45. Miller, H. L., & Loveland, D. H. (1974). Matching when the number of response alternatives is large. Animal Learning & Behavior, 2, 106-110.
46. Myerson, J., & Hale, S. (1984). Practical implications of the matching law. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 367-380.
47. Ono, K. (1987). Superstitious behavior in humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 47, 261-271.
48. Pierce, W. D., & Epling, W. F. (1995). The applied importance of research on the matching law. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 237-241.
49. Pliskoff, S. S., & Brown, T. G. (1976). Matching with a trio of concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 25, 69-73.
50. Poling, A., & Normand, M. (1999). Noncontingent reinforcement: An inappropriate description of time-based schedules that reduce behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 237-238.
51. Rachlin, H., & Baum, W. M. (1972). Effects of alternative reinforcement: Does the source matter? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 18, 231-241.
52. Redd, W. H. (1969). Effects of mixed reinforcement contingencies on adults' control of children's behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 249-254.
53. Redmon, W. K., & Lockwood, K. (1986). The matching law and organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 8, 57-72.
54. Ringdahl, J. E., Vollmer, T. R., Borrero, J. C., & Connell, J. E. (2001). Fixed-time schedule effects as a function of baseline reinforcement rate. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 1-15.
55. Roane, H. S., Fisher, W. W., & Sgro, G. M. (2001). Effects of a fixed-time schedule on aberrant and adaptive behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 333-336.
56. Skinner, B. F. (1948). "Superstition" in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 168-172.
57. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.
58. Vollmer, T. R., & Bourret, J. (2000). An application of the matching law to evaluate the allocation of two- and three-point shots by college basketball players. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 137-150.
59. Vollmer, T. R., & Hackenberg, T. D. (2001). Reinforcement contingencies and social reinforcement: Some reciprocal relations between basic and applied research. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 241-253.
60. Vollmer, T. R., Iwata, B. A., Zarcone, J. R., Smith, R. G., & Mazaleski, J. L. (1993). The role of attention in the treatment of attention-maintained self-injurious behavior: Noncontingent reinforcement and differential reinforcement of other behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 9-21.
61. Vollmer, T. R., Marcus, B. A., & Ringdahl, J. E. (1995). Noncontingent escape as treatment for self-injurious behavior maintained by negative reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 15-26.
62. Vollmer, T. R., Ringdahl, J. E., Roane, H. S., & Marcus, B. A. (1997). Negative side effects of noncontingent reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 161-164.