3 Noncontingent Reinforcement Student’s Name Course Name and Number Instructor’s Name and

Noncontingent Reinforcement

Student’s Name

Course Name and Number

Instructor’s Name and Title

Department, Institutional Affiliation

Assignment Due Date

Austin, J. L., & Soeda, J. M. (2008). Fixed‐time teacher attention to decrease off‐task behaviors of typically developing third graders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41(2), 279-283.

Austin and Soeda study whether fixed-time teacher attention can decrease the aberrant behaviors of typically developing students in the 3rd grade. They utilized a schedule selected by the teacher to examine the efficacy of the technique in reducing off-task behaviors. The researchers conducted their study on two students to explore their behavioral responses to fixed-time teacher attention. Austin and Soeda (2008) point out that there were immediate improvements in participants’ behaviors following the teacher-selected fixed-time schedules. The article is useful in highlighting the challenges experienced in identifying the processes of fixed-time schedules in natural settings. Thus the article is relevant for the study on noncontingent behavior since it provides evidence to validate the use of noncontingent reinforcement in the form of fixed-time to reduce undesirable behavior. However, the article may not represent the most recent information since the researchers conducted the study in 2008.

Braat, M., Engelen, J., van Gemert, T., & Verhaegh, S. (2020). The rise and fall of behaviorism: The narrative and the numbers. History of psychology, 23(3), 252.

The authors examine the received view on the development of American psychology. They compare different published journals to develop their study. Additionally, the researchers reconstruct the structure of American Psychology using co-occurrence and cocitation networks. Still, the authors argue that behaviorism is not the dominant school of American psychology. According to Braat et al. (2020), the question on the development of American psychology requires more detailed answers. The article is helpful in establishing the history of behaviorism in terms of the social and theoretical factors that influence development of psychology. Thus, it will support the study of noncontingent reinforcement by providing relevant information on the development of the 20th century American Psychology.

Clark, K. R. (2018). Learning theories: behaviorism.

The article discusses the theory of behaviorism. Behaviorism is a stimulus-response theory that emphasizes that learning occurs when one responds positively to the environment. Clark (2018) defines learning as the process of acquiring new behavior. Thus, it discounts any mental activities. The article examines how a change in behavior gets achieved through conditioning by reinforcement and punishment. The article is beneficial in establishing the historical aspect of behaviorism and how different theorists perceive the concept. Thus, the paper supports the research on noncontingent reinforcement. Furthermore, it provides relevant information on how people learn and unlearn through their environments. Further, the article is appropriate since it provides information from recent research.

Kunnavatana, S. S., Bloom, S. E., Samaha, A. L., Slocum, T. A., & Clay, C. J. (2018). Manipulating parameters of reinforcement to reduce problem behavior without extinction. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 51(2), 283-302.

The authors examine the implications of implementing differential alternative behavior without extinction by manipulating some parameters of reinforcement. However, Kunnavatana et al. (2018) argue that extinction may not be practical if implemented without integrity. The study indicated positive responses for all the participants after manipulating parameters to which they were sensitive. The article is helpful in establishing the concept of differential reinforcement of alternative behavior. Thus, the article is relevant to the study of noncontingent reinforcement since it provides vital information on the implications of manipulating reinforcement parameters to undesirable behaviors without extinction.

Lambert, J. M., Bloom, S. E., Samaha, A. L., Dayton, E., & Kunnavatana, S. S. (2016). Effects of noncontingent reinforcement on the persistence and resurgence of mild aggression. The Psychological Record, 66(2), 283-289.

The authors examine the impact of noncontingent reinforcement on the aggression of an adult who has a developmental disability. They focus on the persistence and resurgence of aggression in the adult during and after treatment. Lambert et al. (2016) argue that noncontingent reinforcement is a common technique for suppressing behavior, but it may strengthen the behaviors it should stop in some conditions. Thus, individuals implementing the processes should monitor their subjects closely to identify the changes in behavior. The research indicated a reduction in aggression when noncontingent interventions were in effect. However, after the extinction of the treatment procedure, there was a resurgence of the behavior. Thus, the article is relevant in the study of noncontingent reinforcement since it provides vital information on the impact of NCR on an adult diagnosed with a developmental disability.

Moore, T. C., Robinson, C. C., Coleman, M. B., Cihak, D. F., & Park, Y. (2016). Noncontingent reinforcement to improve classroom behavior of a student with a developmental disability. Behavior modification, 40(4), 640-657.

The authors examine the impact of noncontingent reinforcement in addressing task engagement and disruptive behavior in an eight-year-old boy with a developmental disability. According to Moore et al. (2016), noncontingent reinforcement procedures promote behavior reduction, enhancing student participation and learning. Furthermore, the research shows that disruptive behavior reduced significantly when the researcher applied noncontingent reinforcement, and task engagement increased. Thus, the article is relevant in providing information on the impact of noncontingent reinforcement on a student who has a developmental disability. Furthermore, it supports the topic of noncontingent reinforcement by highlighting the implications of using NCR as the primary treatment for aberrant behavior.

Newman, Z. A., Roscoe, E. M., Errera, N. P., & Davis, C. R. (2021). Noncontingent reinforcement: Arbitrary versus maintaining reinforcers for escape‐maintained problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.

The authors evaluate the efficacy of noncontingent reinforcement without extinction in reducing the escape-maintained problem behavior. Additionally, they compare arbitrary versus maintaining reinforcers for individuals experiencing escape-maintained problem behavior. Thus, the researchers examined two conditions, including noncontingent reinforcement using an arbitrary reinforcer and noncontingent reinforcement using maintaining reinforcer on four participants. According to Newman et al. (2021), noncontingent reinforcement is a competent intervention for treating socially maintained problem behaviors. They point out that the results for their study indicated variances where two participants showed substantial improvements in their behaviors during noncontingent reinforcement without extinction and with maintaining and arbitrary reinforcers. The next participant indicated changes only with extinction and arbitrary and maintain reinforcers. The last participant showed substantial changes during noncontingent reinforcement with the maintaining reinforcer. The article is helpful in establishing the efficacy of noncontingent reinforcement without extinction in treating escape-maintained behavior. Furthermore, it is relevant in the study of noncontingent reinforcement since it provides information on the maintaining and arbitrary reinforcers.

Phillips, C. L., Iannaccone, J. A., Rooker, G. W., & Hagopian, L. P. (2017). Noncontingent reinforcement for the treatment of severe problem behavior: An analysis of 27 consecutive applications. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50(2), 357-376.

The authors examine the implications of noncontingent reinforcement in treating severe problem behavior. They include 27 participants ranging from age 5 to 33 years. Philips et al. (2017) analyze the outcomes across behavioral function with regard to alternative versus functional reinforcers. Noncontigent reinforcement treated problem behavior in 14 applications using alternative or functional reinforcement. When the researchers utilized the automatic reinforcement, 5 out of 9 applications indicated significant behavior change. The article helps analyze the effectiveness and challenges of noncontingent reinforcement in treating severe behavior problems. Thus, the article supports the topic of noncontingent reinforcement by providing relevant information on alternative and functional reinforcers in the treatment of extreme problem behaviors. However, the article utilized a sample that may not be representative of the entire population since the individuals were receiving primary treatment in an inpatient facility.

Saini, V., Fisher, W. W., & Pisman, M. D. (2017). Persistence during and resurgence following noncontingent reinforcement implemented with and without extinction. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 50(2), 377-392.

Saini, Fisher, and Pisman discuss the persistence of destructive behavior among individuals during noncontingent reinforcement, implemented with extinction. Additionally, the authors research the resurgence of destructive behavior after noncontingent reinforcement without extinction. The authors develop their argument based on the behaviorism theory. Saini et al. (2017) point out that participant response will be more persistent if noncontingent reinforcement gets implemented without extinction. Still, they highlight that resurgence is likely to occur if noncontingent reinforcement gets implemented without extinction. The researchers include three participants who have autism to develop their study. The article is vital in establishing the positive and negative outcomes of treating destructive behavior using noncontingent reinforcement. Thus the article will be helpful to the study on noncontingent reinforcement with and without extinction. Further, the article is relevant to the study topic since it is a newly developed research with current information.

Slocum, S. K., Grauerholz‐Fisher, E., Peters, K. P., & Vollmer, T. R. (2018). A multicomponent approach to thinning reinforcer delivery during noncontingent reinforcement schedules. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 51(1), 61-69.

The authors evaluate the implications of a noncontingent approach to handling aggression in different individuals. They utilized a noncontingent reinforcement process where they provided the participants with a continuous signaled reinforcement for aggression. Later, the researchers reduced the time the participants experienced to the reinforcer. Slocum et al. highlight that the participants showed immediate change by the substantial reduction in aggression. Additionally, they point out that the thinning on the reinforcer aids in approximating the ideal schedule to be maintained in a natural setting. The authors utilized three participants, and they all indicated similar changes in their aggression levels. The article is vital in establishing the clinical utility of the noncontingent reinforcement procedure, which includes thinning the reinforcer to examine the changes in behavior. Furthermore, the article supports the research topic since it provides relevant information on the implications of thinning noncontingent reinforcement.

Wallace, M. D., Iwata, B. A., Hanley, G. P., Thompson, R. H., & Roscoe, E. M. (2012). Noncontingent reinforcement: A further examination of schedule effects during treatment. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 45(4), 709-719.

The researchers conducted the study to determine the impact of thin and dense noncontingent reinforcements on behavior. They aimed at examining whether thin and dense noncontingent reinforcement causes different outcomes on behavior. Additionally, the authors study whether the impact of noncontingent reinforcement on behavior changes when the dense schedules get thinned. Wallace et al. (2012) point out that dense noncontingent reinforcement schedules reduce aberrant behavior. Additionally, extinction occurs as the dense schedules get thinned. Thus, the article is helpful in establishing the implications of using thin or dense noncontingent reinforcement schedules. Further, the article supports the study of noncontingent reinforcement by providing relevant information on the benefits and limitations of using thin and dense noncontingent reinforcements to reduce undesirable behavior. Still, the article provides relevant information on the selected school of thought since it centers on behavior analysis.

References

Austin, J. L., & Soeda, J. M. (2008). Fixed‐time teacher attention to decrease off‐task behaviors of typically developing third graders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41(2), 279-283.

Braat, M., Engelen, J., van Gemert, T., & Verhaegh, S. (2020). The rise and fall of behaviorism: The narrative and the numbers. History of psychology, 23(3), 252.

Clark, K. R. (2018). Learning theories: behaviorism.

Order Plagiarism-Free Paper