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.

中文翻译：

---

名义上可接受的完整性失败会对涉及间歇性强化的干预措施产生负面影响

当为替代响应编程持续强化时，替代行为的差异强化 (DRA) 在 80% 完整性时有效的发现可能有助于人们认为 80% 或更高的完整性是可以接受的。然而，研究还表明，其他干预措施（例如，非偶然强化）可能无法在 80% 完整性时保持有效。对于常见的行为干预，80% 的完整性是可接受的条件仍不清楚。因此，我们进行了两项人类操作性研究，以评估 80% 完整性对有条件或无条件间歇性强化计划干预的影响。在实验 1 期间，我们比较了以 80% 的完整性实施的非偶然强化 (NCR) 和 DRA。在实验 2 中，我们比较了 DRA 的 2 个变体，其中包括用于强化替代行为的比率或间隔时间表。结果重复了先前的研究，表明具有为替代响应编程的 FR-1 时间表的 DRA 导致一致的目标响应抑制，即使完整性降低到 80%。相比之下，当以 80% 的完整性实施时，NCR 和基于间隔的 DRA 都不是始终有效的。这些结果表明 80% 的完整性不是统一可接受的最低完整性水平。当以 80% 的完整性实施时，NCR 和基于间隔的 DRA 都不是始终有效的。这些结果表明 80% 的完整性不是统一可接受的最低完整性水平。当以 80% 的完整性实施时，NCR 和基于间隔的 DRA 都不是始终有效的。这些结果表明 80% 的完整性不是统一可接受的最低完整性水平。