摘要：Basic researchers, but not most applied researchers, have assumed that the behavior-decelerating effects of noncontingent reinforcement result at least partly from adventitious reinforcement of competing behaviors. The literature contains only sketchy evidence of these effects because few noncontingent reinforcement studies measure alternative behaviors. A laboratory model is presented in which concurrent schedules of contingent reinforcement were used to establish a "target" and an "alternative" behavior. Imposing noncontingent reinforcement decreased target behavior rates and increased alternative behavior rates, outcomes that were well described by the standard quantitative account of alternative reinforcement, the generalized matching law. These results suggest that adventitious reinforcement of alternative behaviors can occur during noncontingent reinforcement interventions, although the range of conditions under which this occurs remains to be determined in future studies. As an adjunct to applied studies, laboratory models permit easy measurement of alternative behaviors and parametric manipulations needed to answer many research questions. Full Text The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (164K). Selected References These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article. Bacotti Alfred V. Responding under schedules combining response-dependent and response-independent shock delivery. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Mar; 29 (2):267–272. [ PubMed ] Baum William M. On two types of deviation from the matching law: bias and undermatching. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Jul; 22 (1):231–242. [ PubMed ] Baum William M, Rachlin Howard C. Choice as time allocation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Nov; 12 (6):861–874. [ PubMed ] Brownstein Aaron J. Concurrent schedules of response-independent reinforcement: duration of a reinforcing stimulus. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Mar; 15 (2):211–214. [ PubMed ] Brownstein Aaron J, Pliskoff Stanley S. Some effects of relative reinforcement rate and changeover delay in response-independent concurrent schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Nov; 11 (6):683–688. [ PubMed ] Carr JE, Bailey JS, Ecott CL, Lucker KD, Weil TM. On the effects of noncontingent delivery of differing magnitudes of reinforcement. J Appl Behav Anal. 1998 Fall; 31 (3):313–321. [ PubMed ] Carr JE, Kellum KK, Chong IM. The reductive effects of noncontingent reinforcement fixed-time versus variable-time schedules. J Appl Behav Anal. 2001 Winter; 34 (4):505–509. [ PubMed ] CATANIA AC. Independence of concurrent responding maintained by interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1962 Apr; 5 :175–184. [ PubMed ] Critchfield Thomas S. Evaluating the function of applied behavior analysis a bibliometric analysis. J Appl Behav Anal. 2002 Winter; 35 (4):423–426. [ PubMed ] Critchfield Thomas S, Paletz Elliott M, MacAleese Kenneth R, Newland M Christopher. Punishment in human choice: direct or competitive suppression? J Exp Anal Behav. 2003 Jul; 80 (1):1–27. [ PubMed ] Davison MC, Hunter IW. Concurrent schedules: undermatching and control by previous experimental conditions. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Sep; 32 (2):233–244. [ PubMed ] Davison M, Nevin J. Stimuli, Reinforcers, And Behavior: An Integration. J Exp Anal Behav. 1999 May; 71 (3):439–482. [ PubMed ] Ecott CL, Foate BA, Taylor B, Critchfield TS. Further evaluation of reinforcer magnitude effects in noncontingent schedules. J Appl Behav Anal. 1999 Winter; 32 (4):529–532. [ PubMed ] Fischer SM, Iwata BA, Mazaleski JL. Noncontingent delivery of arbitrary reinforcers as treatment for self-injurious behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 1997 Summer; 30 (2):239–249. [ PubMed ] Fisher WW, O'Connor JT, Kurtz PF, DeLeon IG, Gotjen DL. The effects of noncontingent delivery of high- and low-preference stimuli on attention-maintained destructive behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 2000 Spring; 33 (1):79–83. [ PubMed ] Fisher WW, Thompson RH, DeLeon IG, Piazza CC, Kuhn DE, Rodriguez-Catter V, Adelinis JD. Noncontingent reinforcement: effects of satiation versus choice responding. Res Dev Disabil. 1999 Nov–Dec; 20 (6):411–427. [ PubMed ] FLESHLER M, HOFFMAN HS. A progression for generating variable-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1962 Oct; 5 :529–530. [ PubMed ] Hagopian LP, Crockett JL, van Stone M, DeLeon IG, Bowman LG. Effects of noncontingent reinforcement on problem behavior and stimulus engagement: the role of satiation, extinction, and alternative reinforcement. J Appl Behav Anal. 2000 Winter; 33 (4):433–449. [ PubMed ] Hagopian LP, Fisher WW, Legacy SM. Schedule effects of noncontingent reinforcement on attention-maintained destructive behavior in identical quadruplets. J Appl Behav Anal. 1994 Summer; 27 (2):317–325. [ PubMed ] HERRNSTEIN RJ. Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1961 Jul; 4 :267–272. [ PubMed ] Innis A, Lane S, Miller E, Critchfield T. Stimulus Equivalence: Effects Of A Default-response Option On Emergence Of Untrained Stimulus Relations. J Exp Anal Behav. 1998 Jul; 70 (1):87–102. [ PubMed ] Kahng SW, Iwata BA, Thompson RH, Hanley GP. A method for identifying satiation versus extinction effects under noncontingent reinforcement schedules. J Appl Behav Anal. 2000 Winter; 33 (4):419–432. [ PubMed ] Lachter GD, Cole BK, Schoenfeld WN. Response rate under varying frequency of non-contingent reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Mar; 15 (2):233–236. [ PubMed ] Lane SD, Clow JK, Innis A, Critchfield TS. Generalization of cross-modal stimulus equivalence classes: operant processes as components in human category formation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1998 Nov; 70 (3):267–279. [ PubMed ] Lattal Kennon A. Combinations of response-reinforcer dependence and independence. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Sep; 22 (2):357–362. [ PubMed ] Lattal KA, Abreu-Rodrigues J. Response-independent events in the behavior stream. J Exp Anal Behav. 1997 Nov; 68 (3):375–398. [ PubMed ] Lattal KA, Doepke KJ. Correspondence as conditional stimulus control: insights from experiments with pigeons. J Appl Behav Anal. 2001 Summer; 34 (2):127–144. [ PubMed ] Lindberg Jana S, Iwata Brian A, Roscoe Eileen M, Worsdell April S, Hanley Gregory P. Treatment efficacy of noncontingent reinforcement during brief and extended application. J Appl Behav Anal. 2003 Spring; 36 (1):1–19. [ PubMed ] Mace F Charles. Basic research needed for stimulating the development of behavioral technologies. J Exp Anal Behav. 1994 May; 61 (3):529–550. [ PubMed ] Madden G, Perone M. Human Sensitivity To Concurrent Schedules Of Reinforcement: Effects Of Observing Schedule-correlated Stimuli. J Exp Anal Behav. 1999 May; 71 (3):303–318. [ PubMed ] Madden Gregory J, Perone Michael. Effects of alternative reinforcement on human behavior: the source does matter. J Exp Anal Behav. 2003 Mar; 79 (2):193–206. [ PubMed ] McDowell JJ. The importance of Herrnstein's mathematical statement of the law of effect for behavior therapy. Am Psychol. 1982 Jul; 37 (7):771–779. [ PubMed ] Myerson Joel, Hale Sandra. Practical implications of the matching law. J Appl Behav Anal. 1984 Fall; 17 (3):367–380. [ PubMed ] Ono Koichi. Superstitious behavior in humans. J Exp Anal Behav. 1987 May; 47 (3):261–271. [ PubMed ] Pierce W David, Epling W Frank. The applied importance of research on the matching law. J Appl Behav Anal. 1995 Summer; 28 (2):237–241. [ PubMed ] Pliskoff Stanley S, Brown Thomas G. Matching with a trio of concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Jan; 25 (1):69–73. [ PubMed ] Rachlin Howard, Baum William M. Effects of alternative reinforcement: does the source matter? J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Sep; 18 (2):231–241. [ PubMed ] Redd William H. Effects of mixed reinforcement contingencies on adults' control of children's behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 1969 Winter; 2 (4):249–254. [ PubMed ] Ringdahl JE, Vollmer TR, Borrero JC, Connell JE. Fixed-time schedule effects as a function of baseline reinforcement rate. J Appl Behav Anal. 2001 Spring; 34 (1):1–15. [ PubMed ] Roane HS, Fisher WW, Sgro GM. Effects of a fixed-time schedule on aberrant and adaptive behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 2001 Fall; 34 (3):333–336. [ PubMed ] Vollmer TR, Bourret J. An application of the matching law to evaluate the allocation of two- and three-point shots by college basketball players. J Appl Behav Anal. 2000 Summer; 33 (2):137–150. [ PubMed ] Vollmer TR, Hackenberg TD. Reinforcement contingencies and social reinforcement: some reciprocal relations between basic and applied research. J Appl Behav Anal. 2001 Summer; 34 (2):241–253. [ PubMed ] Vollmer TR, Iwata BA, Zarcone JR, Smith RG, Mazaleski JL. The role of attention in the treatment of attention-maintained self-injurious behavior: noncontingent reinforcement and differential reinforcement of other behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 1993 Spring; 26 (1):9–21. [ PubMed ] Vollmer TR, Marcus BA, Ringdahl JE. Noncontingent escape as treatment for self-injurious behavior maintained by negative reinforcement. J Appl Behav Anal. 1995 Spring; 28 (1):15–26. [ PubMed ] Vollmer TR, Ringdahl JE, Roane HS, Marcus BA. Negative side effects of noncontingent reinforcement. J Appl Behav Anal. 1997 Spring; 30 (1):161–164. [ PubMed ] Laport Ginna G, Levine Bruce L, Stadtmauer Edward A, Schuster Stephen J, Luger Selina M, Grupp Stephan, Bunin Nancy, Strobl Frank J, Cotte Julio, Zheng Zhaohui, Gregson Brian, Rivers Patricia, Vonderheide Robert H, Liebowitz David N, Porter David L, June Carl H. Adoptive transfer of costimulated T cells induces lymphocytosis in patients with relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma following CD34+-selected hematopoietic cell transplantation. Blood. 2003 Sep 15; 102 (6):2004–2013. [ PubMed ]
