Delivering alternative reinforcement in a distinct context reduces its counter‐therapeutic effects on relapse

Abstract

Delivery of alternative reinforcers in the presence of stimuli previously associated with reinforcement for target behavior increases the susceptibility of target behavior to relapse. To explore contingencies that might mitigate this counter-therapeutic effect, we trained pigeons on a procedure that entailed extinction of previously reinforced target-key pecking, access to a distinct stimulus context contingently on refraining from target behavior (differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior; DRO), and reinforcement of alternative-key pecks (differential-reinforcement of alternative behavior; DRA) in that context. This DRO-DRA treatment was compared with standard DRA in successive conditions, counterbalanced across pigeons. Target behavior extinguished more rapidly in the Standard-DRA condition. When alternative reinforcement was discontinued, however, there was less resurgence after DRO-DRA than after Standard DRA. In a third condition, the DRO contingency was suspended so that the former DRA stimuli were not presented (DRO-NAC), and resurgence was greater than in the Standard-DRA and DRO-DRA conditions. Reinstatement produced by response-independent reinforcers was small and similar across conditions. Subsequent reacquisition of target-key pecking under baseline reinforcement conditions was faster following DRO-NAC than Standard-DRA or DRO-DRA. These findings suggest that DRO-DRA might serve as a useful method in clinical settings for reducing problem behavior while minimizing the threat of posttreatment relapse.

The Role of Contingencies and Stimuli in a Human Laboratory Model of Treatment of Problem Behavior

“…In one study in which the target behavior is automatically reinforced stereotypy, response blocking is used to minimize automatic reinforcement during the transition to and within the DRA setting. In general, preliminary results are consistent with those of the Craig et al (submitted) study with pigeons and the present study in a human operant laboratory.…”

“…Comparable data have been obtained with pigeons. Craig et al (submitted) performed a similar comparison within subjects between standard DRA and DRO-DRA in successive conditions presented in counterbalanced order. Conventional DRA and DRO-DRA were equally effective in decreasing target responding to near zero as found here.…”

“…The procedures included extinction of previously reinforced target-key pecking, access to a distinct stimulus context for meeting a DRO contingency, and reinforcement for alternative key pecks (DRA) in that context. Results showed (a) the DRO-DRA treatment reduced reinstatement of target-key pecking relative to a no-treatment control condition, and (b) less resurgence in the DRO-DRA treatment than in a standard-DRA treatment when alternative reinforcement was discontinued (Craig et al, submitted). Here, we describe a translational study in which children who had intellectual disabilities played computer games in multiple schedules with token reinforcers.…”

An evaluation of resurgence following functional communication training conducted in alternative antecedent contexts via telehealth

“…This possibility is consistent with predictions of the model of resurgence, based on BMT, proposed by Shahan and Sweeney (2011) and supported by the preliminary results of Fisher et al (2018). Second, several laboratory studies equated exposure to reinforcement in alternative contexts versus the treatment context and observed reduced persistence of target responding with training in alternative contexts (e.g., Craig, Cunningham, Sweeney, Shahan, & Nevin, 2018;Podlesnik et al, 2012Podlesnik et al, , 2016Podlesnik et al, , 2017b. However, two lines of evidence argue against this interpretation.…”

“…First, the within-subject design for treatment (Phase 4) was arranged as a reversal design between FCT and tests of resurgence similar to Wacker et al (2011). Furthermore, clinical studies might also expose participants to both standard FCT and FCT-alternative contexts within a multiple schedules design, which has been typical in translational studies with laboratory animals (e.g., Craig et al, 2018;Podlesnik et al, 2012Podlesnik et al, , 2016Podlesnik et al, , 2017b; see also Mace et al, 2010). However, the lack of a reversal (i.e., resurgence) during the first test of resurgence for Cade and Mark, although desirable clinically, obscured the ability to make conclusions about control by contingencies.…”