Comparing Main and Collateral Effects of Extinction and Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior

Petscher, Erin S.; Bailey, Jon S.

doi:10.1177/0145445507309032

Cited by 19 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Adding control conditions that contain no alternative reinforcement, only extinction, to applied research would allow us to see at what rates alternative reinforcement is an effective disruptor and when it may actually make problem behavior more persistent than ordinary extinction. Comparing the effectiveness as well as side‐effects (such as extinction‐induced aggression) of DRA and extinction will make clearer the relative advantages of the treatment options (e.g., Petscher & Bailey, ), especially if behavior during treatment lapses are explicitly included in experimental analyses. In this way, applied researchers may help to solve the theoretical puzzle that has arisen out of our attempt to model the phenomenon of resurgence during alternative reinforcement thinning.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of high, low, and thinning rates of alternative reinforcement on response elimination and resurgence

Sweeney

Shahan

2013

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A common treatment for operant problem behavior is alternative reinforcement. When alternative reinforcement is removed or reduced, however, resurgence of the target behavior can occur. Shahan and Sweeney (2011) developed a quantitative model of resurgence based on behavioral momentum theory that suggests higher rates of alternative reinforcement result in faster response elimination and greater resurgence when removed, whereas lower rates of alternative reinforcement result in slower response elimination but are followed by less resurgence. Thus, the present study was designed to examine whether faster target response elimination and less resurgence could be achieved by beginning with a high rate of alternative reinforcement and gradually thinning it such that a low rate is ultimately removed during a simulated treatment lapse. Results showed that high rates of alternative reinforcement were more effective than low or thinning rates at target response suppression but resulted in resurgence when discontinued. Low and thinning rates, on the other hand, were less effective at response suppression but target responding did not increase when alternative reinforcement was discontinued. The quantitative model cannot currently account for the finding that lower-rate alternative reinforcement may not effectively disrupt behavior relative to an extinction only control. Relative advantages of high, low, thinning, or no alternative reinforcement are discussed with respect to suppression of target response rate during treatment, resurgence when alternative reinforcement is removed, and alternative response persistence, while taking into account differences between this animal model and modern applied behavior analytic treatments.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of high, low, and thinning rates of alternative reinforcement on response elimination and resurgence

Sweeney

Shahan

2013

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interventions for severe destructive behaviors such as aggression, self-injury, and property destruction often incorporate extinction for the behavior that is targeted for elimination (for review, see Iwata, Pace, Cowdery, & Miltenberger, 1994;Petscher & Bailey, 2008). In functional communication training (FCT; Carr & Durand, 1985), for example, reinforcers that maintain destructive behavior are withheld when that behavior occurs and are instead contingent on a communication response.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Re‐exposure to reinforcement in Context A during treatment in Context B reduces ABC renewal

Craig

Sullivan

Browning

et al. 2019

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous work from our laboratory showed that intermittently re-exposing rats to reinforcement for lever pressing in a training (A) context, while eliminating lever pressing in a second (B) context, increased ABA renewal of lever pressing relative to rats that experienced only Context B during response elimination. In the current study, we replicated these procedures while assessing renewal in the presence of a novel context (i.e., ABC renewal). Unlike the findings described above, renewal was reduced in the group that experienced re-exposure to Context A during lever-press elimination relative to rats that experienced only Context B. These findings suggest that alternating between contexts associated with reinforcement and extinction during treatment reduces the probability that organisms will respond in novel contexts. These outcomes may be the result of discrimination and/or generalization processes. Moreover, this training procedure may offer a potential mitigation strategy for ABC renewal.

show abstract

“…Conversely, resurgence might be considered detrimental if the target response has maladaptive consequences, as is often the case in clinical settings. Indeed, extinction of target behavior plus provision of an alternative source of reinforcement is a common intervention strategy for elimination of problem behavior in application (e.g., see Petscher & Bailey, 2008;Petscher, Rey, & Bailey, 2009), and resurgence often occurs when these treatments are suspended (see Lattal & St. Peter Pipkin, 2009;Volkert, Lerman, Call, & Trosclair-Lasserre, 2009). Thus, isolating factors that affect resurgence could inform strategies for promoting recurrence of extinguished behavior when it is desirable and deterring recurrence when it is undesirable.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioral momentum theory fails to account for the effects of reinforcement rate on resurgence

Craig

Shahan

2016

J Exper Analysis Behavior

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The behavioral-momentum model of resurgence predicts reinforcer rates within a resurgence preparation should have three effects on target behavior. First, higher reinforcer rates in baseline (Phase 1) produce more persistent target behavior during extinction plus alternative reinforcement. Second, higher rate alternative reinforcement during Phase 2 generates greater disruption of target responding during extinction. Finally, higher rates of either reinforcement source should produce greater responding when alternative reinforcement is suspended in Phase 3. Recent empirical reports have produced mixed results in terms of these predictions. Thus, the present experiment further examined reinforcer-rate effects on persistence and resurgence. Rats pressed target levers for high-rate or low-rate variable-interval food during Phase 1. In Phase 2, target-lever pressing was extinguished, an alternative nose-poke became available, and nose-poking produced either high-rate variable-interval, low-rate variable-interval, or no (an extinction control) alternative reinforcement. Alternative reinforcement was suspended in Phase 3. For groups that received no alternative reinforcement, target-lever pressing was less persistent following high-rate than low-rate Phase-1 reinforcement. Target behavior was more persistent with low-rate alternative reinforcement than with high-rate alternative reinforcement or extinction alone. Finally, no differences in Phase-3 responding were observed for groups that received either high-rate or low-rate alternative reinforcement, and resurgence occurred only following high-rate alternative reinforcement. These findings are inconsistent with the momentum-based model of resurgence. We conclude this model mischaracterizes the effects of rein-forcer rates on persistence and resurgence of operant behavior.

show abstract

Comparing Main and Collateral Effects of Extinction and Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior

Cited by 19 publications

References 13 publications

Effects of high, low, and thinning rates of alternative reinforcement on response elimination and resurgence

Effects of high, low, and thinning rates of alternative reinforcement on response elimination and resurgence

Re‐exposure to reinforcement in Context A during treatment in Context B reduces ABC renewal

Behavioral momentum theory fails to account for the effects of reinforcement rate on resurgence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About