The purpose of this series of studies was to evaluate the effects of schedule thinning and delay-to-reinforcement following intervention for individuals diagnosed with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Study one was a systematic review of the available literature on schedule thinning, and study two evaluated the effects of a novel approach to delay-to-reinforcement following functional communication training. Results of both studies found that schedule thinning and delay-to-reinforcement are efficacious procedures for continued reductions in challenging behavior following intervention.

Many children are exposed to excessively technology. Such use of technology may lead to health issues including obesity, attention deficits, and sleep disorders. Research has shown that parameters of reinforcement, such as quality and delay, may influence how children allocate their preferences. One way to drive preference away from high-tech toys may be to arrange delays to reinforcement following such selections and immediate reinforcement for an alternative response. In Experiment 1, four subjects who preferred high-tech leisure items over low-tech leisure items were identified through the pair-stimulus preference assessments. The results of Experiment 2 indicated that all subjects were sensitive to delay to reinforcement. When delays were implemented following selection of high-tech items, preference shifted from high-tech to low-tech leisure items at different delays.

The principle of least effort suggests that animals should minimize effort to reinforcement. Thus, not pecking should be preferred over pecking. However, pigeons often peck when it is allowed but not required (e.g., fixed time schedules) but pecking may be adventitiously reinforced. In the present experiment, to better compare a schedule of reinforcement that requires pecking with one that requires the absence of pecking, we compared a fixed-interval (FI) schedule in which reinforcement follows the first peck after the interval has elapsed and a differential-reinforcement-of-other behavior (DRO) schedule which requires pigeons abstain from pecking for a similar interval. The delay to reinforcement was matched on a trial-by-trial basis by extending the duration of the FI to match the DRO schedule that preceded it. Of 12 pigeons, 6 preferred the DRO schedule over the FI schedule and 6 did not show a schedule preference. Those that were indifferent between the schedules had acquired the contingences, as they responded appropriately to the two schedules but had a spatial preference stronger than their schedule preference. Individual differences in the preference of the pigeons may be related to their behavior during the DRO.