“…Many studies have shown that resistance to change in a schedule component is directly related to the rate or amount of reinforcement occurring in that component, regardless of whether all reinforcers are contingent on responding. This general result has been obtained with goldfish (Igaki & Sakagami, 2004), rats (e.g., Blackman, 1968; Shahan & Burke, 2004), pigeons (e.g., Nevin, 1974; Nevin, Tota, Torquato, & Shull, 1990), normal children (Tota-Faucette, 1991), children with developmental disabilities (Ahearn et al, 2003; Mace et al, 2010), college students (Cohen, 1996), and adults with mental retardation (Mace et al, 1990). These studies have employed different sorts of responses and reinforcers, and have evaluated resistance to change by presenting various disruptors including response-independent reinforcers between schedule components, pre-session feeding to devalue reinforcers, response-contingent punishment, conditioned suppression, concurrent distraction, and extinction – i.e., withholding all reinforcers (for reviews see Nevin, 1979; Nevin, 1992b; Nevin & Grace, 2000).…”