Kahng S W, Iwata B A, Thompson R H, Hanley G P
Kennedy Krieger Institute and The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland 21205, USA.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2000 Winter;33(4):419-32. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2000.33-419.
We evaluated one method for determining whether response suppression under noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) is a function of satiation or extinction. Three individuals with developmental disabilities who engaged in self-injurious behavior (SIB) or aggression participated. Results of functional analyses indicated that their problem behavior was maintained by social-positive reinforcement. NCR procedures, individualized for each participant, were implemented in a multiple baseline across subjects design and were associated with decreases in all participants' problem behavior. Identification of the mechanism by which NCR produced these effects was based on examination of cumulative records showing response patterns during and immediately following each NCR session. Satiation during NCR should lead to a temporary increase in responding during the post-NCR (extinction) period due to a transition from the availability to the unavailability of reinforcement (satiation to deprivation). Alternatively, extinction during NCR should reveal no increase in responding during the extinction period because the contingency for the problem behavior would remain unchanged and the transition from satiation to deprivation conditions would be irrelevant. Results suggested that the operative mechanisms of NCR were idiosyncratic across the 3 participants and appeared to change during treatment for 1 of the participants.
我们评估了一种方法，用于确定在非连续性强化（NCR）下反应抑制是饱足还是消退的函数。三名患有发育障碍且有自伤行为（SIB）或攻击行为的个体参与了研究。功能分析结果表明，他们的问题行为是由社会正性强化维持的。针对每个参与者进行了个性化的NCR程序，采用跨受试者的多基线设计实施，且与所有参与者问题行为的减少相关。通过检查累积记录来确定NCR产生这些效果的机制，这些记录显示了每个NCR阶段期间及之后的反应模式。NCR期间的饱足应导致NCR后（消退）期反应暂时增加，这是因为从有强化物可用转变为无强化物可用（从饱足到剥夺）。或者，NCR期间的消退应显示消退期反应没有增加，因为问题行为的 contingency 将保持不变，且从饱足到剥夺条件的转变无关紧要。结果表明，NCR的作用机制在三名参与者中各不相同，并且在其中一名参与者的治疗过程中似乎发生了变化。
