Systematic Changes in Preference for Schedule-Thinning Arrangements as a Function of Relative Reinforcement Density

Abstract

We treated destructive behavior maintained by both social-positive (i.e., access to tangibles) and social-negative (i.e., escape from demands) reinforcement in an individual diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder using functional communication training (FCT). We then thinned the schedule of reinforcement for the tangible function using a multiple schedule (mult FCT) and later thinned the availability of escape using a chained schedule (chain FCT). Both treatments proved effective at maintaining functional communicative responses while decreasing destructive behavior to near-zero levels. In addition, treatment effects maintained when we rapidly thinned mult FCT to the terminal schedule. Throughout chain-FCT schedule thinning, we assessed client preference for each schedule-thinning arrangement (mult FCT or chain FCT) using a concurrent-chains procedure. Client preference reliably shifted from chain FCT to mult FCT as the response requirement increased and the proportion of session spent in reinforcement began to favor mult FCT. We discuss the clinical implications of these findings.

Keywords: chained schedule; choice; concurrent-chains procedure; functional communication training; multiple schedule; preference; schedule thinning.

Figure 1

Rates of destructive behavior during Samantha’s FA of tangible items (top panel) and her FA of escape and attention (bottom panel).

Figure 2

Rates of destructive behavior and FCRs during FCT evaluations for Samantha’s tangible (top panel) and escape (bottom panel) functions of destructive behavior.

Figure 3

Rates of destructive behavior and percentage of correct FCRs for tangible items across baseline and mult-FCT schedule thinning, as indicated by the S^Δ durations.

Figure 4

Rates of destructive behavior and correct FCRs, as well as the percentage of demands with compliance during chain FCT appear in the top panel and rates of destructive behavior and correct FCRs during mult FCT appear in the middle panel. Results of Samantha’s initial-link selections across free-choice trials of mult FCT (at the terminal schedule) and chain FCT (throughout schedule thinning), as well as the proportion of session duration spent in reinforcement appear in the bottom panel.

Figure 5

Proportion of Samantha’s choices for the multiple schedule as a function of relative proportion of reinforcement time in the multiple schedule across increasing response requirements of the chained schedule.