Nominally acceptable integrity failures negatively affect interventions involving intermittent reinforcement

Abstract

The finding that differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) is efficacious at 80% integrity when continuous reinforcement is programmed for alternative responding may have contributed to a perception that integrity at 80% or above is acceptable. However, research also suggests that other interventions (e.g., noncontingent reinforcement) may not remain effective at 80% integrity. The conditions under which 80% integrity is acceptable for common behavioral interventions remains unclear. Therefore, we conducted two human-operant studies to evaluate effects of 80% integrity for interventions with contingent or noncontingent intermittent reinforcement schedules. During Experiment 1, we compared noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) and DRA when implemented with 80% integrity. During Experiment 2, we compared 2 variations of DRA, which included either a ratio or interval schedule to reinforce alternative behavior. Results replicated previous research showing that DRA with a FR-1 schedule programmed for alternative responding resulted in consistent target response suppression, even when integrity was reduced to 80%. In contrast, neither NCR nor interval-based DRA were consistently effective when implemented at 80% integrity. These results demonstrate that 80% integrity is not a uniformly acceptable minimal level of integrity.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 22 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.