2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2012.02.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Resistance to extinction and behavioral momentum

Abstract: In the metaphor of behavioral momentum, reinforcement is assumed to strengthen discriminated operant behavior in the sense of increasing its resistance to disruption, and extinction is viewed as disruption by contingency termination and reinforcer omission. In multiple schedules of intermittent reinforcement, resistance to extinction is an increasing function of reinforcer rate, consistent with a model based on the momentum metaphor. The partial-reinforcement extinction effect, which opposes the effects of rei… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

6
55
0
6

Year Published

2013
2013
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 56 publications
(67 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
6
55
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…When all reinforcers are delivered intermittently, Equation 3 can account for data showing that responding in a richer multiple-schedule component is more resistant to extinction than in a leaner component, consistent with the findings described above for disruptors other than extinction (e.g., VI 120/hr vs VI 30/hr, as in the left panel of Figure 1; for overview see Nevin, 2012). However, with different parameter values – smaller c and larger d – Equation 3 can account for data showing the reverse ordering found in single schedules where more frequent reinforcement reduces resistance to extinction, as expected from the PREE (right panel of Figure 1; see Cohen, Riley, & Weigle, 1993).…”
Section: Resistance To Extinctionsupporting
confidence: 79%
“…When all reinforcers are delivered intermittently, Equation 3 can account for data showing that responding in a richer multiple-schedule component is more resistant to extinction than in a leaner component, consistent with the findings described above for disruptors other than extinction (e.g., VI 120/hr vs VI 30/hr, as in the left panel of Figure 1; for overview see Nevin, 2012). However, with different parameter values – smaller c and larger d – Equation 3 can account for data showing the reverse ordering found in single schedules where more frequent reinforcement reduces resistance to extinction, as expected from the PREE (right panel of Figure 1; see Cohen, Riley, & Weigle, 1993).…”
Section: Resistance To Extinctionsupporting
confidence: 79%
“…However, it is unlikely that differential extinction would influence responding because partial or intermittent reinforcement schedules, like the one used in the PRT, are generally resistant to extinction, an effect known as the partial reinforcement extinction effect. 37, 38 Thus, the task parameters used in the present study were sufficient to allow for the development of a response bias that was mediated by the differential and partial reinforcement schedules.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…higher magnitudes or a preferred quality) should produce more persistence than stimulus contexts that are related to fewer deliveries (i.e. lower magnitudes or less preferred quality) of reinforcers (Nevin, 1974(Nevin, , 2012. BMT also states that operant persistence in a particular context reflects the value of the reinforcer-related stimulus.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%