Resistance to Extinction and Relapse in Combined Stimulus Contexts

Abstract

Reinforcing an alternative response in the same context as a target response reduces the rate of occurrence but increases the persistence of that target response. Applied researchers who use such techniques to decrease the rate of a target problem behavior risk inadvertently increasing the persistence of the same problem behavior. Behavioral momentum theory asserts that the increased persistence is a function of the alternative reinforcement enhancing the Pavlovian relation between the target stimulus context and reinforcement. A method showing promise for reducing the persistence‐enhancing effects of alternative reinforcement is to train the alternative response in a separate stimulus context before combining with the target stimulus in extinction. The present study replicated previous findings using pigeons by showing that combining an “alternative” richer VI schedule (96 reinforcers/ hr) with a “target” leaner VI schedule (24 reinforcers/hr) reduced resistance to extinction of target responding compared with concurrent training of the alternative and target responses (totaling 120 reinforcers/hr). We also found less relapse with a reinstatement procedure following extinction with separate‐context training, supporting previous findings that training conditions similarly influence both resistance to extinction and relapse. Finally, combining the alternative stimulus context was less disruptive to target responding previously trained in the concurrent schedule, relative to combining with the target response trained alone. Overall, the present findings suggest the technique of combining stimulus contexts associated with alternative responses with those associated with target responses disrupts target responding. Furthermore, the effectiveness of this disruption is a function of training context of reinforcement for target responding, consistent with assertions of behavioral momentum theory.

Basing assessment and treatment of problem behavior on behavioral momentum theory: Analyses of behavioral persistence

“…Further, the occurrence of problem behavior was more pronounced following DRA than following baseline, showing that problem behavior was inadvertently strengthened during the DRA treatment even while it was being reduced in frequency of occurrence. These findings replicated the more basic results of Experiment 2, which was conducted with rats, and were then subsequently replicated with pigeons (Podlesnik, Bai, & Elliffe, 2012). Taken together, as discussed by Shahan and Sweeney (2011), ongoing reinforcement of alternative behavior produces cumulative behavioral persistence of both target and alternative behavior, and thus accounts for at least some maintenance failures of behavioral treatment.…”

“…This treatment was based on both the basic literature and applied literature that previously demonstrated this type of generalization (Berg, Wacker, Harding, Ganzer, & Barretto, 2007; Wacker et al, 2005). Overall, Mace et al was the first translational study to show how a commonly applied treatment could be altered in a practical manner to reduce the persistence of problem behavior (see also Mace & Nevin, in press), which have subsequently been supported in the basic literature (e.g., Podlesnik & Bai, 2015; Podelesnik et al, 2012; Podlesnik, Bai, & Skinner, 2016). …”

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

“…Podlesnik, Bai, and Elliffe (2012) confirmed this finding in a similar paradigm with pigeons, and also found that target behavior recurred at a substantial rate when all reinforcement was discontinued (relapse), suggesting some residual strengthening effect of alternative reinforcers on target behavior.…”

Training reinforcement rates, resistance to extinction, and the role of context in reinstatement

“…However, the present experiment was not designed to elucidate the contributions of stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer relations to resistance to extinction and reinstatement since our study produced Rich and Lean components with different rates of responsedependent reinforcement. Previous experiments also arranging response-dependent rates of reinforcement during baseline have also shown an effect of training reinforcer rates on resistance to extinction and relapse, similar to the effect shown when reinforcement in increased in the Rich relative to the Lean component by (1) adding response-independent reinforcers to one of two otherwise equal components, or (2) arranging reinforcers contingent upon an alternative response (Rau et al, 1996;Nevin, 1974;Nevin et al, 1983;Nevin et al, 1990;Mauro & Mace, 1996;Podlesnik, Bai, & Elliffe, 2012;Podlesnik & Shahan, 2009). Thus, the present findings and those of similar experiments attest to the range of conditions in which the effect of stimulus-reinforcer relations on resistance to extinction and relapse can be tested.…”

“…Thus, added reinforcers in the presence of one component stimulus had two separable effects: They weakened the response-reinforcer relation during baseline but strengthened the stimulus-reinforcer relation (see Nevin & Grace, 2000;Nevin & Shahan, 2011). Moreover, greater reinforcement rates produce greater resistance to disruption irrespective of whether the additional reinforcement is presented response independently, as in Podlesnik and Shahan (2009), dependent on the same response (e.g., Nevin, 1974;Nevin, Mandell, & Atak, 1983), or contingent upon a concurrently available response (e.g., Mauro & Mace, 1996;Nevin et al, 1990;Podlesnik, Bai, & Elliffe, 2012;Rau, Pickering, & McLean, 1996). These findings are generally robust and have been observed in a variety of animal species, ranging from fish to humans, as well as several response types and reinforcer manipulations (Ahearn, Clark, Gardenier, Chung, & Dube, 2003;Cohen, 1996;Grimes & Shull, 2001;Harper, 1999;Igaki & Sakagami, 2004;Mace et al, 1990;Shahan & Burke, 2004).…”