Baseline reinforcement rate and resurgence of destructive behavior

Abstract

Concepts from behavioral momentum theory, along with some empirical findings, suggest that the rate of baseline reinforcement may contribute to the relapse of severe destructive behavior. With seven children who engaged in destructive behavior, we tested this hypothesis in the context of functional communication training by comparing the effects of different baseline reinforcement rates on resurgence during a treatment challenge (i.e., extinction). We observed convincing resurgence of destructive behavior in four of seven participants, and we observed more resurgence in the condition associated with high-rate baseline reinforcement (i.e., variable-interval 2 s in Study 1 or fixed-ratio 1 in Study 2) compared to a low-rate baseline reinforcement condition. We discuss the implications of these results relative to schedules of reinforcement in the treatment of destructive behavior and strategies to mitigate resurgence in clinical settings.

Mitigating resurgence of destructive behavior using the discriminative stimuli of a multiple schedule

“…Owen participated in Fisher et al (2019) before the present study. Afton was a 9-year-old girl diagnosed with attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and mixed receptive-expressive language disorder.…”

“…We programmed a VI 40-s reinforcement schedule for Owen and Afton and used a progressive-interval assessment Fisher et al, 2019) to prescribe a VI 4-s reinforcement schedule with Kendrick and a VI 8-s reinforcement schedule with Teddy. The contingencies were similar to those of the baseline in Context A, except the therapist delivered functional reinforcement for destructive behavior according to a variable-interval (VI) schedule to better control and equate reinforcement rates in the two contexts.…”

Randomization tests as alternative analysis methods for behavior‐analytic data

“…Next, the target behavior is extinguished while an alternative behavior is reinforced. Finally, alternative reinforcement is either reduced (Craig, Browning, Nall, Marshall, & Shahan, 2017; Craig, Browning, & Shahan, 2017; Lieving & Lattal, ) or eliminated altogether (Craig, Cunningham, Sweeney, Shahan, & Nevin, ; Craig & Shahan, ; Fisher et al, ; Fisher et al (in press); Leitenberg, Rawson, & Mulick, ; Nevin et al, ). Resurgence occurs if target behavior returns in this last phase.…”

Resurgence as Choice: Implications for promoting durable behavior change

“…Thus, Fisher, Greer, Fuhrman, et al showed that BMT, and quantitative models of resurgence more generally, have the ability to improve standard of care when it comes to treating problem behavior. Additional translational research by Fisher et al (), Fuhrman et al (), and Lichtblau et al (under review) supported similar predictions of BMT when treating problem behavior.…”

“…Given the importance of developing treatments that are durable, recent translational research on the durability of common interventions for problem behavior has generated some troubling findings. Despite their widespread use (Petscher, Rey, & Bailey, 2009;Tiger, Hanley, & Bruzek, 2008) and robust efficacy while in effect (Greer, Fisher, Saini, Owen, & Jones, 2016;Hagopian, Fisher, Sullivan, Acquisto, & LeBlanc, 1998;Kurtz, Boelter, Jarmolowicz, Chin, & Hagopian, 2011;Petscher et al, 2009;Rooker, Jessel, Kurtz, & Hagopian, 2013), differential-reinforcementbased interventions for socially reinforced problem behavior are prone to relapse when differential reinforcement is suspended (Fisher et al, 2019;Fisher, Greer, Fuhrman, Saini, & Simmons, 2018;Fuhrman, Fisher, & Greer, 2016;Harding, Wacker, Berg, Lee, & Dolezal, 2009;Lichtblau, Greer, & Fisher, under review;Mace et al, 2010;Nevin et al, 2016;Volkert, Lerman, Call, & Trosclair-Lasserre, 2009;Wacker et al, 2011). These increases in problem behavior with the suspension of differential reinforcement are examples of resurgence.…”