Resistance to Change and the Law of Effect

Abstract

Three experiments using multiple schedules of reinforcement explored the implications of resistanceto-change findings for the response-reinforcer relation described by the law of effect, using both steadystate responding and responding recorded in the first few sessions of conditions. In Experiment 1, when response-independent reinforcement was increased during a third component, response rate in Components 1 and 2 decreased. This response-rate reduction was proportionately greater in a component in which reinforcer magnitude was small (2-s access to wheat) than in the component in which it was large (6-s access to wheat). However, when reinforcer rates in the two components were varied together in Experiments 2 and 3, response-rate change was the same regardless of the magnitude of reinforcers used in the two components, so that sensitivity of response rates to reinforcer rates (Experiment 2) and of response-rate ratios to reinforcer-rate ratios (Experiment 3) was unaffected by the magnitude of the reinforcers. Therefore, the principles determining resistance to change, described by behavioral momentum theory, seem not to apply when the source of behavior change is the variation of reinforcement contingencies that maintain the behavior. The use of extinction as a manipulation to study resistance to change is questioned.Key words: resistance to change, quantitative law of effect, generalized matching law, sensitivity to reinforcement, behavioral momentum, multiple schedules, key peck, pigeons There are two main conceptions of response strength in schedule-control research, each deriving from a different style of experimental behavior analysis. One identifies response strength with the rate or probability of a response, and derives from research conducted in a tradition dominated by the law of effect. This type of work is characterized by studies in which the schedules maintaining responding are varied over conditions, and resulting changes in response rate are related to changes in the rate of the "strengthening" variable, reinforcement. Quantitative analysis indicates a hyperbolic relation between response rate and reinforcer rate, which is thought to depend on the availability of extraneous reinforcers obtained for behavior other than the target response (see e.g., de Villiers & Herrnstein, 1976;Herrnstein, 1970Herrnstein, , 1974. Thus, "strong" behavior is identified with a high response rate and is observed when high frequencies of reinforcement maintain the response. A feature of this research is that it analyzes steady-state behavior-that is, the level at which the re- sponse occurs after prolonged exposure to each schedule.A second area of study, and one enjoying a resurgence of interest, is research dealing with behavioral resistance to change. Resistance is measured using changes in the rate of a response following an alteration of the environmental context for that response; here, strong behavior is identified with high resistance. Early studies considered resistance to extinction. For example, Hear...

Resistance to extinction: contingency termination and generalization decrement

“…Therefore, the assumed additivity of the effects of discontinuing the contingency and omitting reinforcers must be tested in factorial studies of resistance to change that vary the degree of response-reinforcer contingency with reinforcer rate constant and vary the reinforcer rate with the contingency constant. In a relevant study, Harper and McLean (1992) examined variations in reinforcer rate with the contingency constant. They arranged multiple VI VI schedules with thirty 6-sec reinforcers per hour in one component and thirty 2-sec reinforcers in the other component.…”

“…To control for frequency of encounter, we replicated the NC test of Experiment 1 with reinforcers that differed in magnitude but with the same reinforcer rates in the two components. Previous research has shown that differences in reinforcer magnitude between components affect resistance to change in much the same way as differences in reinforcer rates (e.g., Harper & McLean, 1992;Nevin, 1992;Nevin, Mandell, & Yarensky, 1981;Shettleworth & Nevin, 1965). Also, in two further replications, we imposed brief delays between responses and NC food presentations for two reasons.…”

“…However, for EXT, the disrupter is the abrupt termination of reinforcement-an internal within-component change in the conditions of reinforcement (cf. Harper & McLean, 1992). Moreover, the decrease in reinforcer rate from its value during training to zero is necessarily larger in the component with the greater rate of reinforcement.…”

Resistência à mudança: efeitos da administração e retirada do etanol

“…Na interrupção após o consumo agudo, observouse efeitos de maior perturbação no componente pobre no teste após 12 h, mas não após 36 h e o mesmo não foi visto após a administração crônica. Mesmo com as variáveis levantadas para melhor controle, como diferenças nas vias de administração (Brown, et al, 2000;Hall, et al, 2015;Mello 1976;Pohorecky, 1981) e aversividade da gavagem (Brown, et al, 2000;Hall, et al, 2015;Wallace, et al, 1990), ainda há a possibilidade dos resultados de retirada da droga como evento perturbador serem assistemáticos assim como os obtidos com há a administração da droga como evento perturbador (Cohen, 1989, Egli et al, 1992, Harper, 1999a, Pinskston, 2009 generalidade (e.g., Harper & McLean, 1992, Nevin, 1984. Assim, apesar das variáveis apontadas como importantes de serem investigadas, com uma replicação sistemática para dar força aos resultados obtidos, deve-se pontuar que apesar de uma vasta generalidade nos resultados obtidos com os mais diversos eventos perturbadores e da medida da resistência à mudança como proposta pelo momentum comportamental ser efetiva, existem especificidades que necessitam de cautela e de maiores investigações, salientando-se, portanto, o cuidado com a generalidade e verdade absoluta da teoria.…”

“…Diante dos resultados dos experimentos de Nevin (1974), pode-se afirmar que, mesmo com algumas diferenças nos procedimentos empregados como, por exemplo, (1) na maneira de se delinear os componentes com maior ou menor taxa de reforço ou componentes "rico" e "pobre" (e.g., Bouzas, 1978;Harper, 1996;Harper & McLean 1992, Shettleworth & Nevin, 1965 e (2) nos eventos perturbadores empregados, os resultados são semelhantes.…”