Signaled alternative reinforcement and the persistence of operant behavior

Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) is a treatment designed to eliminate problem behavior by reinforcing an alternative behavior at a higher rate. Availability of alternative reinforcement may be signaled, as with Functional Communication Training, or unsignaled. Whether or not alternative reinforcement is signaled could influence both the rate and persistence of problem behavior. The present study investigated whether signaling the availability of alternative reinforcement affects the rate and persistence of a concurrently available target response with pigeons. Three components of a multiple concurrent schedule arranged equal reinforcement rates for target responding. Two of the components also arranged equal reinforcement rates for an alternative response. In one DRA component, a discrete stimulus signaled the availability of response‐contingent alternative reinforcement by changing the keylight color upon reinforcement availability. In the other DRA component, availability of alternative reinforcement was not signaled. Target responding was most persistent in the unsignaled DRA component when disrupted by satiation, free food presented between components, and extinction, relative to the signaled DRA and control components. These findings suggest the discrete stimulus functionally separated the availability of alternative reinforcement from the discriminative stimuli governing target responding. These findings provide a novel avenue to explore in translational research assessing whether signaling the availability of alternative reinforcement with DRA treatments reduces the persistence of problem behavior.     

Choosing among multiple alternatives: Relative and overall reinforcer rates

Choice behavior among two alternatives has been widely researched, but fewer studies have examined the effect of multiple (more than two) alternatives on choice. Two experiments investigated whether changing the overall reinforcer rate affected preference among three and four concurrently scheduled alternatives. Experiment 1 trained six pigeons on concurrent schedules with three alternatives available simultaneously. These alternatives arranged reinforcers in a ratio of 9:3:1 with the configuration counterbalanced across pigeons. The overall rate of reinforcement was varied across conditions. Preference between the pair of keys arranging the 9:3 reinforcer ratio was less extreme than the pair arranging the 3:1 reinforcer ratio regardless of overall reinforcer rate. This difference was attributable to the richer alternative receiving fewer responses per reinforcer than the other alternatives. Experiment 2 trained pigeons on concurrent schedules with four alternatives available simultaneously. These alternatives arranged reinforcers in a ratio of 8:4:2:1, and the overall reinforcer rate was varied. Next, two of the alternatives were put into extinction and the random interval duration was changed from 60 s to 5 s. The ratio of absolute response rates was independent of interval length across all conditions. In both experiments, an analysis of sequences of visits following each reinforcer showed that the pigeons typically made their first response to the richer alternative irrespective of which alternative was just reinforced. Performance on these three‐ and four‐alternative concurrent schedules is not easily extrapolated from corresponding research using two‐alternative concurrent schedules.     

Extended pausing by humans on multiple fixed-ratio schedules with varied reinforcer magnitude and response requirements

We conducted three experiments to reproduce and extend Perone and Courtney's (1992) study of pausing at the beginning of fixed-ratio schedules. In a multiple schedule with unequal amounts of food across two components, they found that pigeons paused longest in the component associated with the smaller amount of food (the lean component), but only when it was preceded by the rich component. In our studies, adults with mild intellectual disabilities responded on a touch-sensitive computer monitor to produce money. In Experiment 1, the multiple-schedule components differed in both response requirement and reinforcer magnitude (i.e., the rich component required fewer responses and produced more money than the lean component). Effects shown with pigeons were reproduced in all 7 participants. In Experiment 2, we removed the stimuli that signaled the two schedule components, and participants' extended pausing was eliminated. In Experiment 3, to assess sensitivity to reinforcer magnitude versus fixed-ratio size, we presented conditions with equal ratio sizes but disparate magnitudes and conditions with equal magnitudes but disparate ratio sizes. Sensitivity to these manipulations was idiosyncratic. The present experiments obtained schedule control in verbally competent human participants and, despite procedural differences, we reproduced findings with animal participants. We showed that pausing is jointly determined by past conditions of reinforcement and stimuli correlated with upcoming conditions.     

Effects of shifts in food reinforcement context on rats’ consumption of concurrently available water or sucrose solution

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of signaled transitions from relatively rich to lean conditions of food reinforcement on drinking concurrently available water or sucrose‐sweetened water in rats. Past research demonstrated that these negative incentive shifts produce behavioral disruption in the form of extended pausing on fixed‐ratio schedules. Four male Long‐Evans rats operated on a two‐component multiple fixed‐ratio fixed‐ratio schedule. In one manipulation, the ratio was held constant and the components arranged either a large six‐pellet reinforcer (rich) or small one‐pellet reinforcer (lean). In a second manipulation, the components both produced a one‐pellet reinforcer but differed in terms of the ratio requirement, with the rich and lean conditions corresponding to relatively small and large ratios. In both manipulations, components were pseudorandomly presented to arrange four transitions signaled by retractable levers: lean‐to‐lean, lean‐to‐rich, rich‐to‐rich, and rich‐to‐lean (the negative incentive shift). During experimental conditions, a bottle with lickometer was inserted in the chamber, providing concurrent access either to tap water or a 10% sucrose solution. The negative incentive shift produced considerably more drinking than the other transitions in all rats during both manipulations. The level of drinking was not polydipsic; rather, it appears that the negative incentive shift enhanced the value of concurrently available reinforcers relative to food reinforcement.     

Assessing functions of stimuli associated with rich‐to‐lean transitions using a choice procedure

Under fixed‐ratio schedules, transitions from more to less favorable conditions of reinforcement (rich‐to‐lean transitions) usually generate extended pausing. One possible explanation for this effect is that stimuli associated with rich‐to‐lean transitions are aversive and, thus, extended pausing functions as escape. The purpose of this study was to characterize further the aversive function of different transitions, and the stimuli associated with them, by allowing pigeons to choose to complete select ratios in the presence of either a mixed‐schedule stimulus or a transition‐specific multiple‐schedule stimulus. The mixed schedule was preferred during transitions that signaled an upcoming lean reinforcer (rich‐to‐lean and lean‐to‐lean), whereas the multiple schedule was preferred during transitions that signaled an upcoming rich reinforcer (lean‐to‐rich and rich‐to‐rich). These findings support the notion that stimuli associated with rich‐to‐lean (and to some extent lean‐to‐lean) transitions can function aversively; whereas stimuli associated with other transitions (e.g., lean‐to‐rich and rich‐to‐rich) can function as conditioned reinforcers. When the opportunity to choose between schedule‐correlated stimuli was available, however, choice latency was controlled exclusively by the multiple‐schedule stimulus. That is, the opportunity to select the mixed schedule did not attenuate rich‐to‐lean pauses, suggesting that extended pausing may be more than simply escape.     

Delivering alternative reinforcement in a distinct context reduces its counter‐therapeutic effects on relapse

Delivery of alternative reinforcers in the presence of stimuli previously associated with reinforcement for target behavior increases the susceptibility of target behavior to relapse. To explore contingencies that might mitigate this counter‐therapeutic effect, we trained pigeons on a procedure that entailed extinction of previously reinforced target‐key pecking, access to a distinct stimulus context contingently on refraining from target behavior (differential‐reinforcement‐of‐other‐behavior; DRO), and reinforcement of alternative‐key pecks (differential‐reinforcement of alternative behavior; DRA) in that context. This DRO‐DRA treatment was compared with standard DRA in successive conditions, counterbalanced across pigeons. Target behavior extinguished more rapidly in the Standard‐DRA condition. When alternative reinforcement was discontinued, however, there was less resurgence after DRO‐DRA than after Standard DRA. In a third condition, the DRO contingency was suspended so that the former DRA stimuli were not presented (DRO‐NAC), and resurgence was greater than in the Standard‐DRA and DRO‐DRA conditions. Reinstatement produced by response‐independent reinforcers was small and similar across conditions. Subsequent reacquisition of target‐key pecking under baseline reinforcement conditions was faster following DRO‐NAC than Standard‐DRA or DRO‐DRA. These findings suggest that DRO‐DRA might serve as a useful method in clinical settings for reducing problem behavior while minimizing the threat of posttreatment relapse.     

Stimulus–reinforcer relations established during training determine resistance to extinction and relapse via reinstatement

The baseline rate of a reinforced target response decreases with the availability of response‐independent sources of alternative reinforcement; however, resistance to disruption and relapse increases. Because many behavioral treatments for problem behavior include response‐dependent reinforcement of alternative behavior, the present study assessed whether response‐dependent alternative reinforcement also decreases baseline response rates but increases resistance to extinction and relapse. We reinforced target responding at equal rates across two components of a multiple schedule with pigeons. We compared resistance to extinction and relapse via reinstatement of (1) a target response trained concurrently with a reinforced alternative response in one component with (2) a target response trained either concurrently or in separate components from the alternative response across conditions. Target response rates trained alone in baseline were higher but resistance to extinction and relapse via reinstatement tests were greater after training concurrently with the alternative response. In another assessment, training target and alternative responding together, but separating them during extinction and reinstatement tests, produced equal resistance to extinction and relapse. Together, these findings are consistent with behavioral momentum theory—operant response–reinforcer relations determined baseline response rates but Pavlovian stimulus–reinforcer relations established during training determined resistance to extinction and relapse. These findings imply that reinforcing alternative behavior to treat problem behavior could initially reduce rates but increase persistence.     

Arousal, changeover responses, and preference in concurrent schedules

Pigeons were trained on multiple schedules that provided concurrent reinforcement in each of two components. In Experiment 1, one component consisted of a variable-interval (VI) 40-s schedule presented with a VI 20-s schedule, and the other a VI 40-s schedule presented with a VI 80-s schedule. After extended training, probe tests measured preference between the stimuli associated with the two 40-s schedules. Probe tests replicated the results of Belke (1992) that showed preference for the 40-s schedule that had been paired with the 80-s schedule. In a second condition, the overall reinforcer rate provided by the two components was equated by adding a signaled VI schedule to the component with the lower reinforcer rate. Probe results were unchanged. In Experiment 2, pigeons were trained on alternating concurrent VI 30-s VI 60-s schedules. One schedule provided 2-s access to food and the other provided 6-s access. The larger reinforcer magnitude produced higher response rates and was preferred on probe trials. Rate of changeover responding, however, did not differ as a function of reinforcer magnitude. The present results demonstrate that preference on probe trials is not a simple reflection of the pattern of changeover behavior established during training.     

Changeover behavior and preference in concurrent schedules

Pigeons were trained on a multiple schedule of reinforcement in which separate concurrent schedules occurred in each of two components. Key pecking was reinforced with milo. During one component, a variable-interval 40-s schedule was concurrent with a variable-interval 20-s schedule; during the other component, a variable-interval 40-s schedule was concurrent with a variable-interval 80-s schedule. During probe tests, the stimuli correlated with the two variable-interval 40-s schedules were presented simultaneously to assess preference, measured by the relative response rates to the two stimuli. In Experiment 1, the concurrently available variable-interval 20-s schedule operated normally; that is, reinforcer availability was not signaled. Following this baseline training, relative response rate during the probes favored the variable-interval 40-s alternative that had been paired with the lower valued schedule (i.e., with the variable-interval 80-s schedule). In Experiment 2, a signal for reinforcer availability was added to the high-value alternative (i.e., to the variable-interval 20-s schedule), thus reducing the rate of key pecking maintained by that schedule but leaving the reinforcement rate unchanged. Following that baseline training, relative response rates during probes favored the variable-interval 40-s alternative that had been paired with the higher valued schedule. The reversal in the pattern of preference implies that the pattern of changeover behavior established during training, and not reinforcement rate, determined the preference patterns obtained on the probe tests.     

Variable-ratio versus variable-interval schedules: response rate, resistance to change, and preference

Two experiments asked whether resistance to change depended on variable-ratio as opposed to variable-interval contingencies of reinforcement and the different response rates they establish. In Experiment 1, pigeons were trained on multiple random-ratio random-interval schedules with equated reinforcer rates. Baseline response rates were disrupted by intercomponent food, extinction, and prefeeding. Resistance to change relative to baseline was greater in the interval component, and the difference was correlated with the extent to which baseline response rates were higher in the ratio component. In Experiment 2, pigeons were trained on multiple variable-ratio variable-interval schedules in one half of each session and on concurrent chains in the other half in which the terminal links corresponded to the multiple-schedule components. The schedules were varied over six conditions, including two with equated reinforcer rates. In concurrent chains, preference strongly overmatched the ratio of obtained reinforcer rates. In multiple schedules, relative resistance to response-independent food during intercomponent intervals, extinction, and intercomponent food plus extinction depended on the ratio of obtained reinforcer rates but was less sensitive than was preference. When reinforcer rates were similar, both preference and relative resistance were greater for the variable-interval schedule, and the differences were correlated with the extent to which baseline response rates were higher on the variable-ratio schedule, confirming the results of Experiment 1. These results demonstrate that resistance to change and preference depend in part on response rate as well as obtained reinforcer rate, and challenge the independence of resistance to change and preference with respect to response rate proposed by behavioral momentum theory.     

A translational evaluation of transitions

Transitions with nonhuman animals are typically framed as inescapable changes in signaled reinforcement schedules that result in a pause in responding unique to switches from rich to lean schedules. Pausing is considered to be a function of the aversive qualities of the contrasting reinforcement schedules. Transitions are typically framed in applied research as physical changes in location that evoke problem behavior maintained by the escape of an aversive event or resumption of a preferred event. We attempted to extend the basic framing of transitions to behaviors and contexts of social significance and evaluate a novel treatment for the problem of dawdling by 3 boys who had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder during rich‐to‐lean transitions. Dawdling during physical transitions was most readily observed when transitioning to lean contexts in Experiment 1. We then shortened transition duration in Experiment 2 by programming unsignaled and probabilistic rich reinforcement in the upcoming context.     

Strict and random alternation in concurrent variable-interval schedules

Six pigeons responded on pairs of concurrent variable-interval schedules with, in different parts, four different arrangements of alternation between schedules. Following a single switching-key response, alternation was either strict or random, and the alternative presented after a switch (the postswitch alternative) was either signaled by the location of the switching key or unsignaled. Generalized-matching analyses showed little difference in behavior among the different alternation arrangements, except the usual finding of lower sensitivity of response allocation than time allocation was eliminated by arranging random alternation. Patterns of interchangeover times were similar for all arrangements except signaled random alternation. Differences in behavior preceding the different postswitch alternatives were found in the signaled random alternation procedure. Preference was biased towards the color of the signaled postswitch alternative and showed increased sensitivity when the postswitch alternative was to be the one with the higher reinforcer rate. Interchangeover times were substantially shorter when the postswitch alternative was signaled to be different from the current alternative than when it was signaled to be the same. However, when separate reinforcer ratios were calculated for the different postswitch alternatives, those effects were eliminated or greatly reduced. We suggest that, although behavior is indeed influenced by the postswitch alternative, the mechanism is indirect. That is, the distributions of reinforcers between alternatives obtained before each postswitch alternative differ when those alternatives are signaled, and those distributions are discriminated, but the same relations between choice and relative reinforcement hold irrespective of which postswitch alternative is signaled.     

Resistance to extinction in the steady state and in transition

Three experiments with pigeons explored the constancy of reinforcer omission during extinction conjectured by rate estimation theory. Experiment 1 arranged 3-component multiple variable-interval (VI) schedules with a mixture of food and extinction trials within each session. Reinforcers omitted to an extinction criterion increased with food-trial reinforcer rate. Experiment 2 arranged 3-component multiple VI schedules where components differed in rate or number of reinforcers. Resistance to extinction depended on the training reinforcer rate but not on the number of reinforcers omitted. Experiment 3 replicated the partial-reinforcement extinction effect within subjects in a discrete-trial procedure and found that more reinforcers were omitted in continuous- than in partial-reinforcement trials. A model of extinction based on behavioral momentum theory accounted for all the data.     

Stimulus Fading and Response Elaboration in Differential Reinforcement for Alternative Behavior

A hallmark of applied behavior analysis is the development of function‐based interventions for problem behavior. A widely recommended function‐based intervention is differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA), in which reinforcement is contingent upon socially acceptable alternatives to problem behavior (e.g., teaching communication skills). Typically, DRA is introduced under rich schedules of reinforcement. Although effective for initiating behavior change, rich schedules are often impractical in the natural setting. In this study, we evaluated the extent to which a stimulus fading program could be employed to elaborate alternative behavior (mands) in two individuals diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. For both participants, problem behavior was reduced substantially upon implementation of the DRA procedure. Further, problem behavior rates remained low and mand rates decreased to more practical levels as the DRA behavioral requirements increased during the fading program. The fading approach demonstrated in this paper may be a useful component of intervention packages for clinicians. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Concurrent-schedule performance in transition: changeover delays and signaled reinforcer ratios

Six pigeons were trained in experimental sessions that arranged six or seven components with various concurrent-schedule reinforcer ratios associated with each. The order of the components was determined randomly without replacement. Components lasted until the pigeons had received 10 reinforcers, and were separated by 10-s blackout periods. The component reinforcer ratios arranged in most conditions were 27:1, 9:1, 3:1, 1:1, 1:3, 1:9 and 1:27; in others, there were only six components, three of 27:1 and three of 1:27. In some conditions, each reinforcement ratio was signaled by a different red-yellow flash frequency, with the frequency perfectly correlated with the reinforcer ratio. Additionally, a changeover delay was arranged in some conditions, and no changeover delay in others. When component reinforcer ratios were signaled, sensitivity to reinforcement values increased from around 0.40 before the first reinforcer in a component to around 0.80 before the 10th reinforcer. When reinforcer ratios were not signaled, sensitivities typically increased from zero to around 0.40. Sensitivity to reinforcement was around 0.20 lower in no-changeover-delay conditions than in changeover-delay conditions, but increased in the former after exposure to changeover delays. Local analyses showed that preference was extreme towards the reinforced alternative for the first 25 s after reinforcement in changeover-delay conditions regardless of whether components were signaled or not. In no-changeover-delay conditions, preference following reinforcers was either absent, or, following exposure to changeover delays, small. Reinforcers have both local and long-term effects on preference. The former, but not the latter, is strongly affected by the presence of a changeover delay. Stimulus control may be more closely associated with longer-term, more molar, reinforcer effects.     

Successive independence and behavioral contrast in a closed economy.

Two pigeons had access to multiple concurrent schedules of reinforcement for 24 hours per day in their home cages. The variable-interval schedules comprising the multiple concurrent schedules were varied across 16 conditions. In three sets of conditions, one schedule was varied while its concurrent alternative and the concurrent schedules in the other component were held constant. Behavioral contrast was observed; that is, as the rate of reinforcement arranged by the varied schedule decreased, response rates on the constant schedules typically increased. These conditions formed part of two larger sets of conditions in which the concurrent schedules in one multiple-schedule component remained constant while the concurrent schedules in the other component were varied. Successive independence was found, in that behavior allocation during the constant component did not vary as a function of the reinforcer ratios in the varied component. Successive independence between components in multiple concurrent schedules is a robust result that occurs in closed economies and under conditions that promote behavioral contrast.     

Sensitivity of time allocation to an overall reinforcer rate feedback function in concurrent interval schedules

Six pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules in which feedback functions arranged that the overall reinforcer rate either (a) was independent of preference, (b) decreased with increasing absolute preference, or (c) increased with increasing absolute preference. In Experiment 1, the reinforcer rate in an interreinforcement interval was determined by the absolute time-allocation ratio in the previous interval. When arranged reinforcer ratios were varied, there was no evidence of control over preference by overall reinforcer rate. In Experiment 2, the feedback function arranged that reinforcer rates were an inverse function of absolute preference, and window durations were fixed times. In Phase 1, using schedules that provided a four-to-one reinforcer ratio, the window duration was decreased from 20 s to 5 s over four conditions. Then, in Phases 2 and 3, the arranged reinforcer ratios were varied. In Phase 2, the reinforcer rate in the current 5-s time window was determined by preference in the previous 5-s window, and in Phase 3, the window durations were 20 s. Again, there was no indication of control by obtained overall reinforcer rate. These data call into question theories that suggest that the process underlying matching is one of maximizing overall reinforcer rates, or that preference in concurrent aperiodic schedules is controlled to any extent by overall reinforcer rate. They also question the notion that concurrent-schedule preference is controlled by molecular maximizing.     

Multiple schedules,off‐baseline reinforcement shifts,and resistance to extinction

Resistance to extinction in a target multiple‐schedule component varies inversely with the rate of reinforcement arranged in an alternative component during baseline. The present experiment asked whether changing the reinforcer rate in an alternative component would impact extinction of target component responding if those changes occurred in an off‐baseline phase during which the target component was never experienced. Pigeons' key pecking was studied in three types of conditions, and each condition consisted of three phases. In Phase 1, pecking produced food in the target and alternative components of a multiple schedule according to variable‐interval 60‐s schedules. In Phase 2, the alternative‐component stimulus was presented alone in a single schedule. Pecking during this phase produced the same reinforcer rate as in baseline in the Control condition, a higher rate of food (variable‐interval 15 s) in the High‐Rate condition, or was extinguished in the Extinction condition. Extinction of target‐ and alternative‐component key pecking then was assessed in a multiple schedule during the final phase of each condition. Resistance to extinction of target‐component key pecking was the same between the Control and High‐Rate conditions but lower in the Extinction condition. These findings are discussed in terms of discrimination and generalization processes.     

Effects of the discriminability of alternatives in three-alternative concurrent-schedule performance

Six pigeons were trained on two- and three-alternative concurrent schedules in which the alternatives were signaled by different wavelengths of light on the main pecking key. The schedules were arranged according to a switching-key procedure in which pecks on a white side key produced a 3-s blackout and, intermittently, a change in the variable-interval schedule of food programmed on the main (center) key after the blackout. In Part 1, a two-alternative concurrent variable-interval schedule was arranged in which the alternatives were signaled by 560 nm and 630 nm. Parts 2 and 3 arranged three-alternative concurrent variable-interval schedules with the alternatives signaled by 560 nm, 600 nm, and 630 nm (Part 2) and 560 nm, 623 nm, and 630 nm (Part 3). Within each part, the relative rate of food reinforcers available on the alternatives was varied across a wide range. In all parts of the experiment, the ratios of responses emitted between pairs of alternatives were more extreme than the ratios of reinforcers obtained on the pairs of alternatives, a result termed overmatching. In Parts 2 and 3, generalized matching sensitivities between pairs of alternatives were found to be higher when the reinforcer rate on the third alternative was low than when it was high—an apparent failure of the constant-ratio rule. The data were well described by an extension of the Davison and Jenkins (1985) model, which assumes differing discriminabilities between concurrent-schedule alternatives in combination with a punishing effect of blackout following changeovers.     

Escape from rich‐to‐lean transitions: Stimulus change and timeout

Extended pausing during discriminable transitions from rich‐to‐lean conditions can be viewed as escape (i.e., rich‐to‐lean transitions function aversively). In the current experiments, pigeons’ key pecking was maintained by a multiple fixed‐ratio fixed‐ratio schedule of rich or lean reinforcers. Pigeons then were provided with another, explicit, mechanism of escape by changing the stimulus from the transition‐specific stimulus used in the multiple schedule to a mixed‐schedule stimulus (Experiment 1) or by producing a period of timeout in which the stimulus was turned off and the schedule was suspended (Experiment 2). Overall, escape was under joint control of past and upcoming reinforcer magnitudes, such that responses on the escape key were most likely during rich‐to‐lean transitions, and second‐most likely during lean‐to‐lean transitions. Even though pigeons pecked the escape key, they paused before doing so, and the latency to begin the fixed ratio (i.e., the pause) remained extended during rich‐to‐lean transitions. These findings suggest that although the stimulus associated with rich‐to‐lean transitions functioned aversively, pausing is more than simply escape responding from the stimulus.