Assessing the role of alternative response rates and reinforcer rates in resistance to extinction of target responding when combining stimuli

Studies of behavioral momentum reveal that reinforcing an alternative response in the presence of a target response reduces the rate of target responding but increases its persistence, relative to training the target response on its own. Because of the parallels between these studies and differential‐reinforcement techniques to reduce problem behavior in clinical settings, alternative techniques to reduce problem behavior without enhancing its persistence are being explored. One potential solution is to train an alternative response in a separate stimulus context from problem behavior before combining the alternative stimulus with the target stimulus. The present study assessed how differences in reinforcement contingencies and rate for alternative responding influenced resistance to extinction of target responding when combining alternative and target stimuli in pigeons. Across three experiments, alternative stimuli signaling a response–reinforcer dependency and greater reinforcer rates more effectively decreased the persistence of target responding when combining alternative and target stimuli within the same extinction tests, but not when compared across separate extinction tests. Overall, these findings reveal that differences in competition between alternative and target responding produced by contingencies of alternative reinforcement could influence the effectiveness of treating problem behavior through combining stimulus contexts.     

Temporal context, preference, and resistance to change

According to behavioral momentum theory, preference and relative resistance to change in concurrent-chains schedules are correlated and reflect the relative conditioned value of discriminative stimuli. In the present study, we explore the generality of this relation by manipulating the temporal context within a concurrent-chains procedure through changes in the duration of the initial links. Consistent with previous findings, preference for a richer terminal link was less extreme with longer initial links across three experiments with pigeons. In Experiment 1, relative resistance to change and preference were related inversely when responding was disrupted with response-independent food presentations during initial links, replicating a previous finding with rats. However, more food was presented with longer initial links, confounding the disrupter and initial-link duration. In Experiment 2, presession feeding was used instead and eliminated the negative relation between relative resistance to change and preference, but relative resistance to change was not sensitive to relative terminal-link reinforcement rates. In Experiment 3, with more extreme relative terminal-link reinforcement rates, increasing initial-link duration similarly decreased preference and relative resistance to change for the richer terminal link. Thus, when conditions of disruption are equal and assessed under the appropriate reinforcement conditions, changes in temporal context impact relative resistance to change and preference similarly.     

Response–reinforcer dependency and resistance to change

The effects of the response–reinforcer dependency on resistance to change were studied in three experiments with rats. In Experiment 1, lever pressing produced reinforcers at similar rates after variable interreinforcer intervals in each component of a two‐component multiple schedule. Across conditions, in the fixed component, all reinforcers were response‐dependent; in the alternative component, the percentage of response‐dependent reinforcers was 100, 50 (i.e., 50% response‐dependent and 50% response‐independent) or 10% (i.e., 10% response‐dependent and 90% response‐independent). Resistance to extinction was greater in the alternative than in the fixed component when the dependency in the former was 10%, but was similar between components when this dependency was 100 or 50%. In Experiment 2, a three‐component multiple schedule was used. The dependency was 100% in one component and 10% in the other two. The 10% components differed on how reinforcers were programmed. In one component, as in Experiment 1, a reinforcer had to be collected before the scheduling of other response‐dependent or independent reinforcers. In the other component, response‐dependent and ‐independent reinforcers were programmed by superimposing a variable‐time schedule on an independent variable‐interval schedule. Regardless of the procedure used to program the dependency, resistance to extinction was greater in the 10% components than in the 100% component. These results were replicated in Experiment 3 in which, instead of extinction, VT schedules replaced the baseline schedules in each multiple‐schedule component during the test. We argue that the relative change in dependency from Baseline to Test, which is greater when baseline dependencies are high rather than low, could account for the differential resistance to change in the present experiments. The inconsistencies in results across the present and previous experiments suggest that the effects of dependency on resistance to change are not well understood. Additional systematic analyses are important to further understand the effects of the response–reinforcer relation on resistance to change and to the development of a more comprehensive theory of behavioral persistence.     

Resistance to extinction versus extinction as discrimination

The hypothesis that response strength might be measured by persistence of responding in the face of extinction was discredited in the 1960s because experiments showed that responding persists longer following intermittent reinforcers than following continuous reinforcers. Instead, researchers proposed that the longer persistence following intermittent reinforcers arises because intermittent reinforcement more closely resembles extinction—a discrimination theory. Attention to resistance to extinction revived because one observation seemed to support the persistence hypothesis: Following training on a multiple schedule with unequal components, responding usually persisted longer in the formerly richer component than in the formerly lean component. This observation represents an anomaly, however, because results with single schedules and concurrent schedules contradict it. We suggest that the difference in results arises because the multiple-schedule procedure, while including extensive training on stimulus discrimination, includes no training on discrimination between food available and food unavailable, whereas comparable single- and concurrent-schedule procedures include such training with repeated extinction. In Experiment 1, we replicated the original result, and in Experiment 2 showed that when the multiple-schedule procedure includes training on food/no-food discrimination, extinction following multiple schedules contradicts behavioral momentum theory and agrees with the discrimination theory and research with single and concurrent schedules.     

Resistance to extinction following variable-interval reinforcement: reinforcer rate and amount

Rats obtained food-pellet reinforcers by nose poking a lighted key. Experiment 1 examined resistance to extinction following single-schedule training with different variable-interval schedules, ranging from a mean interval of 16 min to 0.25 min. That is, for each schedule, the rats received 20 consecutive daily baseline sessions and then a session of extinction (i.e., no reinforcers). Resistance to extinction (decline in response rate relative to baseline) was negatively related to the rate of reinforcers obtained during baseline, a relation analogous to the partial-reinforcement-extinction effect. A positive relation between these variables emerged, however, when the unit of extinction was taken as the mean interreinforcer interval that had been in effect during training (i.e., as an omitted reinforcer during extinction). In a second experiment, rats received blocks of training sessions, all with the same variable-interval schedule but with a reinforcer of four pellets for some blocks and one pellet for others. Resistance to extinction was greater following training with the larger (four pellets) than with the smaller (one pellet) reinforcer. Taken together, these results support the principle that greater reinforcement during training (e.g., higher rate or larger amount) engenders greater resistance to extinction even when the different conditions of reinforcement are varied between blocks of sessions.     

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.     

Response rate viewed as engagement bouts: resistance to extinction

Rats obtained food pellets by nose poking a lighted key, the illumination of which alternated every 50 s during a session between blinking and steady, signaling either a relatively rich (60 per hour) or relatively lean (15 per hour) rate of reinforcement. During one training condition, all the reinforcers in the presence of the rich-reinforcement signal were response dependent (i.e., a variable-interval schedule); during another condition only 25% were response dependent (i.e., a variable-time schedule operated concurrently with a variable-interval schedule). An extinction session followed each training block. For both kinds of training schedule, and consistent with prior results, response rate was more resistant to extinction in the presence of the rich-reinforcement signal than in the presence of the lean-reinforcement signal. Analysis of interresponse-time distributions from baseline showed that differential resistance to extinction was not related to baseline differences in the rate of initiating response bouts or in the length of bouts. Also, bout-initiation rate (like response rate) was most resistant to extinction in the presence of the rich-reinforcement signal. These results support the proposal of behavioral momentum theory (e.g., Nevin & Grace, 2000) that resistance to extinction in the presence of a discriminative stimulus is determined more by the stimulus-reinforcer (Pavlovian) than by the stimulus-response-reinforcer (operant) contingency.     

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.     

RESISTANCE TO EXTINCTION AND RELAPSE IN COMBINED STIMULUS CONTEXTS

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.     

Resistance to change and relapse of observing

Four experiments examined relapse of extinguished observing behavior of pigeons using a two-component multiple schedule of observing-response procedures. In both components, unsignaled periods of variable-interval (VI) food reinforcement alternated with extinction and observing responses produced stimuli associated with the availability of the VI schedule (i.e., S+). The components differed in the rate of food arranged (Rich = VI 30 s; Lean = VI 120 s). In Experiment 1, following baseline training, extinction of observing involved removal of both food and S+ deliveries, and reinstatement was examined by presenting either response-independent food or S+ deliveries. In Experiment 2, extinction involved removal of only food deliveries while observing responses continued to produce S+. Reinstatement was examined by delivering food contingent upon the first two food-key responses occurring in the presence of the S+. Experiment 3 assessed ABA renewal of observing by extinguishing food-key and observing responses in the presence of one contextual stimulus (i.e., B) and then returning to the original training context (i.e., A) during continued extinction. Experiment 4 examined resurgence by introducing food reinforcement for an alternative response during extinction, and subsequently removing that alternative source of food. Across experiments, relative resistance to extinction and relapse of observing tended to be greater in the component previously associated with the higher rate of primary reinforcement. Relapse of observing or attending to stimuli associated with primary reinforcement appears to be impacted by frequency of primary reinforcement in a manner similar to responding maintained directly by primary reinforcement.     

Behavioral momentum and resistance to extinction across repeated extinction tests

The present experiments assessed whether resistance to extinction of pigeons' key pecking decreased across repeated extinction tests. An additional impetus for this research was to determine how the quantitative framework provided by behavioral momentum theory might be used to describe any such changes across tests. Pigeons pecked keys in two‐component multiple schedules (one component associated with a higher reinforcer rate and the other with a lower rate) in which baseline and extinction conditions alternated. In Experiment 1, baseline and extinction conditions alternated every session, and, in Experiment 2, these conditions lasted for 10 and 7 sessions, respectively. Resistance to extinction decreased across successive extinction conditions in both experiments. Fits of the behavioral‐momentum based model of extinction to the data returned uncertain results in Experiment 1 but implicated both generalization decrement and response–reinforcer contingency termination as the possible mechanisms responsible for behavior change in Experiment 2. Thus, these data suggest that experimental manipulations that affect discrimination of changes in reinforcement contingencies may influence resistance to extinction by modulating the disruptive impacts of removing reinforcers from the experimental context and of suspending response–reinforcer contingencies.     

Greater reinforcement rate during training increases spontaneous recovery

Spontaneous recovery occurs when a previously reinforced and recently extinguished response reemerges over the course of time, often at the beginning of a new session of extinction. Spontaneous recovery could underlie instances of treatment relapse that threaten otherwise effective behavioral interventions for problem behavior. In two experiments, we arranged multiple schedules with pigeons and a human child to assess the effects of different training reinforcer rates on spontaneous recovery. In both experiments, responding was both more resistant to extinction and more likely to relapse following training with greater reinforcement rates upon returning to extinction after time off from extinction testing. A quantitative model based on behavioral momentum theory accounted well for the data, which suggests reexposure to the extinction context following time off during extinction resulted in (1) the failure of extinction learning to generalize, and (2) greater generalization of original learning during training. The present model attempts to quantify theories attributing spontaneous recovery to changes in temporal context.     

Conditioned reinforcement value and resistance to change

Three experiments examined the effects of conditioned reinforcement value and primary reinforcement rate on resistance to change using a multiple schedule of observing-response procedures with pigeons. In the absence of observing responses in both components, unsignaled periods of variable-interval (VI) schedule food reinforcement alternated with extinction. Observing responses in both components intermittently produced 15 s of a stimulus associated with the VI schedule (i.e., S+). In the first experiment, a lower-valued conditioned reinforcer and a higher rate of primary reinforcement were arranged in one component by adding response-independent food deliveries uncorrelated with S+. In the second experiment, one component arranged a lower valued conditioned reinforcer but a higher rate of primary reinforcement by increasing the probability of VI schedule periods relative to extinction periods. In the third experiment, the two observing-response components provided similar rates of primary reinforcement but arranged different valued conditioned reinforcers. Across the three experiments, observing-response rates were typically higher in the component associated with the higher valued conditioned reinforcer. Resistance to change was not affected by conditioned reinforcement value, but was an orderly function of the rate of primary reinforcement obtained in the two components. One interpretation of these results is that S+ value does not affect response strength and that S+ deliveries increase response rates through a mechanism other than reinforcement. Alternatively, because resistance to change depends on the discriminative stimulus-reinforcer relation, the failure of S+ value to impact resistance to change could have resulted from a lack of transfer of S+ value to the broader discriminative context.     

Persistence during and resurgence following noncontingent reinforcement implemented with and without extinction

Noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) is typically implemented with extinction (EXT) for destructive behavior reinforced by social consequences and without EXT for destructive behavior reinforced by sensory consequences. Behavioral momentum theory (BMT) predicts that responding will be more persistent, and treatment relapse in the form of response resurgence more likely, when NCR is implemented without EXT due to the greater overall rate of reinforcement associated with this intervention. We used an analogue arrangement to test these predictions of BMT by comparing NCR implemented with and without EXT. For two of three participants, we observed more immediate reductions in responding during NCR without EXT. However, for all participants, NCR without EXT produced greater resurgence than NCR with EXT when we discontinued all reinforcers during an EXT Only phase, although there was variability in response patterns across and within participants. Implications for treatment of destructive behavior using NCR are discussed.     

The role of response force on the persistence and structure of behavior during extinction

Behavior Momentum Theory has emerged as a prominent account of resistance to change in both basic and applied research. Although laboratory studies often define precise, repeatable responses, application research often deals with response classes that may vary widely along a number of dimensions. In general, Behavior Momentum Theory has not addressed how response dimensions impact resistance to change, providing an opportunity to expand the model in new directions. Four rats pressed a force transducer under a multiple variable interval (VI) 60‐s VI 60‐s schedule of reinforcement. In one component, responses satisfied the schedule only if the response force fell within a “low” force band requirement; responses in the other schedule were required to satisfy a “high” force band. Once responding stabilized, extinction was programmed for three sessions. Then, the procedures were replicated. The results showed that response force came under discriminative control, but force requirements had no impact on resistance to extinction. In a follow‐up condition, the schedule was changed to a multiple VI 30‐s VI 120‐s schedule and the low‐force band operated in both components. The results showed that behavior maintained by the VI 30‐s schedule was generally more resistant to extinction. A secondary analysis showed that force distributions created under baseline maintained during extinction. Overall, the results suggest that differential response force requirements prevailing in steady state do not affect the course of extinction.     

Comparing preference and resistance to change in constant- and variable-duration schedule components

Two experiments explored preference and resistance to change in concurrent chains in which the terminal links were variable-interval schedules that ended either after a single reinforcer had been delivered (variable duration) or after a fixed period of access to the schedule (constant duration). In Experiment 1, pigeons' preference between the same pair of terminal links overmatched relative reinforcement rate when the terminal links were of constant duration, but not when they were of variable duration. Responding during the richer terminal link decreased less, relative to baseline, when response-independent food was presented during the initial links according to a variable-time schedule. In Experiment 2, all subjects consistently preferred a terminal link that consisted of 20-s access to a variable-interval 20-s schedule over a terminal link that ended after one reinforcer had been delivered by the same schedule. Results of resistance-to-change tests corresponded to preference, as responding during the constant-duration terminal link decreased less, relative to baseline, when disrupted by both response-independent food during the initial links and prefeeding. Overall, these data extend the general covariation of preference and resistance to change seen in previous studies. However, they suggest that reinforcement numerosity, including variability in the number of reinforcers per terminal-link entry, may sometimes affect preference and resistance to change in ways that are difficult to explain in terms of current models.