Noncontingent Reinforcement: Some Additional Comments

I agree with Poling and Normand’s (1999) view that noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) is an incorrect description of time-based procedures that reduce behavior rates. I also agree that schedule descriptors, such as fixedtime attention or fixed-time escape, are more accurate. Since the publication of Vollmer, Iwata, Zarcone, Smith, and Mazaleski (1993), I have received numerous comments about terminology. Most people have been surprised when I tell them I agree that the name is incorrect. Perhaps this commentary will allow me to express my agreement about terms and to describe a small part of the history behind our initial use of the term NCR. The term NCR had been used for many years in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA) and other journals prior to the publication of our study. Similar (equally problematic) terms, such as response-independent reinforcement, were used in the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (e.g., Zeiler, 1968). Historically, the term was used to refer to a control procedure designed to test reinforcement effects; that is, to demonstrate the effects of a contingency (e.g., Goetz, Holmberg, & LeBlanc, 1975). In our study, we were simply using a term that had been used previously. It is important to note that, in the same article, we also used the term differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) to describe another procedure. It occurred to us that the terms DRO and NCR both had potential limitations. I defer to Poling and Normand’s commentary to describe the limitations of the term NCR, but