Resistance to extinction in children as a function of N-length and number of different N-lengths

Litchfield, Peter M.; Duerfeldt, Pryse H.

doi:10.3758/bf03329134

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 7 publications

(7 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most investigations of the PREE manipulated the percentage of reinforced responses or trials during acquisition and demonstrated that resistance was inversely related to these percentages. However, results of studies with both humans and nonhumans, conducted primarily by Capaldi and colleagues, suggest that resistance to extinction is determined by other factors related to reinforcement schedules, such as the number of consecutive nonreinforced trials preceding a reinforced trial (N length), the number of different N lengths, and the number of each N length (e.g., Capaldi, 1964;Halpern & Poon, 1971;Litchfield & Duerfeldt, 1969;Meyers & Capaldi, 1970). In addition, the PREE is more likely to occur when PRF is combined with other variables, including lengthy acquisition training (Uhl & Young, 1967), large reinforcement magnitudes (Amsel, Hug, & Surridge, 1968), delayed reinforcement (L. Peterson, 1956), and massed acquisition trials (Sheffield, 1949).…”

Section: Basic (Nonclinical) Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing a Technology for the Use of Operant Extinction in Clinical Settings: An Examination of Basic and Applied Research

Lerman

Iwata

1996

J of App Behav Analysis

188

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Extinction of operant behavior, which involves terminating the reinforcement contingency that maintains a response, is important to the development, generalization, and reduction of behavior in clinical settings. We review basic and applied research findings on variables that influence the direct and indirect effects of extinction and discuss the potential value of a general technology for the use of extinction. We suggest that current research findings are not sufficient for the development of a comprehensive, applied technology of extinction and provide extensive guidelines for further studies on factors that may affect the course of extinction in clinical settings.DESCRIPTORS: extinction, behavior disorders, reinforcementExtinction of operant behavior involves terminating the reinforcement contingency that maintains a response, which results in a reduction in the behavior's occurrence over time. 1 Results of basic research (e.g., Ferster & Skinner, 1957;Skinner, 1938) have revealed much about its direct and indirect effects, including a number of variables that influence the general course of responding during extinction. These findings have important implications for the use of extinction in applied settings, in which behavior is ofWe thank Marc Branch, Timothy Hackenberg, Cecil Mercer, and Betty Capaldi for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.Reprints may be obtained from

show abstract

Section: Basic (Nonclinical) Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing a Technology for the Use of Operant Extinction in Clinical Settings: An Examination of Basic and Applied Research

Lerman

Iwata

1996

J of App Behav Analysis

188

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…problem-solving conditions (e.g., Halpern & Poon, 1971;Lamberth, 1971;Lamberth & Dyck, 1972;Litchfield & Duerfeldt, 1969;Meyers & Capaldi, 1970), as well as analogue clinical conditions (e.g., Jones, Nation, & Massad, 1977;Koegel & Rincover, 1977;Nation & Massad, 1978).…”

Section: Smentioning

confidence: 99%

Persistence: The role of partial reinforcement in psychotherapy.

Nation¹,

Woods²

1980

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Persistence, which refers to the ability of a learned behavior to survive protracted nonreinforcement (extinction), has been an overlooked dimension of clinical intervention. While persistence of newly acquired coping behavior is desired (and possibly assumed) by all psychotherapeutic procedures, few treatment programs possess features that operate to sustain responding in the face of a nonsupportive, nonreinforcing environment. The present article presents a treatment strategy designed to foster persistence based on the laboratory findings that partial reinforcement schedules produce greater resistance to extinction than continuous reinforcement schedules-a phenomenon referred to as the partial reinforcement extinction effect. The two major theories of persistence (Amsel's general theory of persistence and Capaldi's sequential theory) are discussed, and the basic principles of these models are extended to a number of therapeutic modalities including depression therapies, systematic desensitization, assertiveness training, and aversion therapy. In addition, procedural considerations including generalized and discriminated persistence are discussed.

show abstract

“…Preliminary evidence from these investigations and at least four others (Halpern & Poon, 1971;Lamberth, 1971;Litchfield & Duerfeldt, 1969;Meyers & Capaldi, 1970) indicate that researchers interested in human conditioning should consider these more specific operations when studying an analog to instrumental reward conditioning. The effects of sequence of reward in acquisition are, according to Capaldi, a fundamental difference between sequential and nonsequential theory.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…on each clock for the remaining trials. This procedure was necessary because the results of pilot work and other investigations (Lamberth, Gouaux, & Davis, in press;Litchfield & Duerfeldt, 1969) indicated that if 5 is prompted to pull the lever by E after the start of the experiment, he pulls for many trials at a steady rate regardless of the reinforcement contingencies.…”

Section: Experiments Imentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Relatively little work has been done on the sequential theory of Capaldi (1967), probably because of its recent emergence. The studies involving sequential variables and human 5s that have been reported in the literature have dealt primarily with the number of nonreinforced trials prior to a reinforced trial (N length) (Halpern & Poon, 1971;Lamberth, 1971;Litchfield & Duerfeldt, 1969;Meyers & Capaldi, 1970).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reward magnitude and sequence of magnitudes as determinants of resistance to extinction in humans.

Lamberth¹,

Dyck²

1972

Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments investigated magnitude of reward and resistance to extinction (Rn) using social reinforcers with human .Ss. In Exp. I, a group that received small (S) reward magnitude showed more Rn than a group trained on large (L) magnitude of reward. In Exp. II, a group that had transitions from nonreward to large reward was more resistant to extinction than a group that had transitions from nonreward to small reward. In Exp. Ill, a group that experienced an S-L transition in acquisition showed more Rn than a group that received an L-S transition, even though magnitude of reward was identical for both groups. The results were interpreted in sequential terms.

show abstract

Resistance to extinction in children as a function of N-length and number of different N-lengths

Cited by 8 publications

References 7 publications

Developing a Technology for the Use of Operant Extinction in Clinical Settings: An Examination of Basic and Applied Research

Developing a Technology for the Use of Operant Extinction in Clinical Settings: An Examination of Basic and Applied Research

Persistence: The role of partial reinforcement in psychotherapy.

Reward magnitude and sequence of magnitudes as determinants of resistance to extinction in humans.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About