Volume 31, Issue 3 pp. 313-321

ON THE EFFECTS OF NONCONTINGENT DELIVERY OF DIFFERING MAGNITUDES OF REINFORCEMENT

James E. Carr

Corresponding Author

James E. Carr

UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA

Department of Psychology/296, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada 89557-0062 (E-mail: [email protected])Search for more papers by this author
Jon S. Bailey

Jon S. Bailey

FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

Search for more papers by this author
Cheryl L. Ecott

Cheryl L. Ecott

AUBURN UNIVERSITY

Search for more papers by this author
Kim D. Lucker

Kim D. Lucker

FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

Search for more papers by this author
Timothy M. Weil

Timothy M. Weil

BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, INC.

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 27 February 2013
Citations: 46

Abstract

We conducted a parametric analysis of response suppression associated with different magnitudes of noncontingent reinforcement (NCR). Participants were 5 adults with severe or profound mental retardation who engaged in a manual response that was reinforced on variable-ratio schedules during baseline. Participants were then exposed to NCR via multielement and reversal designs. The fixed-time schedules were kept constant while the magnitude of the reinforcing stimulus was varied across three levels (low, medium, and high). Results showed that high-magnitude NCR schedules produced large and consistent reductions in response rates, medium-magnitude schedules produced less consistent and smaller reductions, and low-magnitude schedules produced little or no effect on responding. These results suggest that (a) NCR affects responding by altering an establishing operation (i.e., attenuating a deprivation state) rather than through extinction, and (b) magnitude of reinforcement is an important variable in determining the effectiveness of NCR.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.