As you know from previous lessons, Motivating operations (MO) are events alter the current value of stimulus changes as reinforcement or punishment. An establishing operation (EO) is a motivating operation that increases the value of a reinforcer and increase the frequency in behaviour that provides access to the reinforcer. An abolishing operation (AO) is a motivating operation that decreases the value of a reinforcer and decreases the chances of behaviors that provide access to that reinforcer.
Non-contingent reinforcement (NCR) is an antecedent intervention in which stimuli with known reinforcing properties are delivered on a fixed-time (FT) or variable-time (VT) schedule independent of the learner’s behaviour. It is contrasted with contingent reinforcement ? where the presentation of a reinforcer is made contingent on the occurrence of a certain behaviour (or class of behaviours).
For example, if the function of a behaviour is to gain attention from the teacher, the teacher should provide the student with access to attention more frequently. This acts as an abolishing operation and decreases the chances of behaviors that provide access to that reinforcer.
For a child who runs away from a carer to access attention and sensory reinforcement in the form of being chased, providing non-contingent opportunities to play chasing on a schedule reduces the chances of the behavior of running away from a carer in a dangerous or inappropriate scenario.
Non-contingent reinforcement can be a powerful technique that decreases a behavior that challenges. However, there are circumstances where it might not be effective.
Earlier in the course, we discussed satiation ? that is If the same reinforcing stimulus is used over and over again, it loses its value as a reinforcer. However, sometimes the point of satiation is so high, that non-contingent reinforcement cannot be used to meaningfully reduce its value as reinforcer.
For example, for many people with Prader-Willi syndrome the reinforcing effectiveness of food may be enduringly raised. This means that even if you provide increased access to food across their day, their motivation to engage in behaviours that result in access to food will not decrease. Non-contingent reinforcement might be ineffective when there is no satiation point for the client, or if it the satiation point is so high that it cannot not be reached without engaging in unsafe practices.
Earlier in the course, we also discussed the idea of generalised conditioned reinforcers. These were stimuli that had come to be reinforcers by being paired with multiple forms of reinforcement. The most common example of a generalised conditioned reinforcer is money. As generalised conditioned reinforcers are associated with multiple forms of reinforcement, they are resistant to satiation. If the function of a behaviour is access to some activity or item that is a generalised conditioned reinforcer, non-contingent reinforcement may have a limited effect.
In spite of these limitations, non-contingent reinforcement is a powerful tool. It can be effective in helping to decrease challenging behaviour but also in improving quality of life for clients. Behaviours that challenge often indicate that some need is not being met for a client. This is what creates the establishing operation for challenging behavior. By providing more of the relevant form of reinforcement, we can help to address that need. For example, increasing the quality and quantity of social interaction, will likely improve the quality of life of somebody who has not been receiving sufficient quality social interaction. This is a worthwhile goal even in the absence of behaviors that challenge.