Resurgence following differential reinforcement of alternative behavior implemented with and without extinction

In the clinic, differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) often involves programming extinction for destructive behavior while reinforcing an alternative form of communication (e.g., a functional communication response); however, implementing extinction can be unsafe or impractical under some circumstances. Quantitative theories of resurgence (i.e., Behavioral Momentum Theory and Resurgence as Choice) predict differences in the efficacy of treatments that do and do not involve extinction of target responding when reinforcement conditions maintaining alternative responding worsen. We tested these predictions by examining resurgence following two DRA conditions in which we equated rates of reinforcement. In DRA without extinction, target and alternative behavior produced reinforcement. In DRA with extinction plus noncontingent reinforcement, only alternative behavior produced reinforcement. We conducted this study in a reverse-translation sequence, first with participants who engaged in destructive behavior (Experiment 1) and then in a laboratory setting with rats (Experiment 2). Across both experiments, we observed proportionally lower levels of target responding during and following the DRA condition that arranged extinction for the target response. However, levels of resurgence were similar following both arrangements.     

Resurgence Following Higher or Lower Quality Alternative Reinforcement

Resurgence is a temporary increase in a previously suppressed target behavior following a worsening in reinforcement conditions. Previous studies have examined how higher rates or magnitudes of alternative reinforcement affect suppression of the target behavior and subsequent resurgence. However, there has been no investigation of the effects of higher versus lower qualities of alternative reinforcement on resurgence. Using a three-phase resurgence preparation with rats, the present experiments examined the effects of an alternative reinforcer that was of higher (Experiment 1) or lower (Experiment 2) quality than the reinforcer that had previously maintained the target behavior. The results of both experiments showed greater reductions in target behavior with a higher quality alternative reinforcer and larger increases in target responding when a higher quality alternative reinforcer was removed. Along with prior findings with higher rates and magnitudes of alternative reinforcement, these findings suggest that variations in reinforcer dimensions that increase the efficacy of alternative reinforcement also tend to increase resurgence when alternative reinforcement is removed. The results are discussed in terms of the resurgence as choice in context model and in terms of potential clinical implications.     

Resurgence is greater following a return to the training context than remaining in the extinction context

The present study examined whether resurgence of a previously reinforced target response upon removing alternative reinforcement would be greater when (1) returning to the original training context (ABA context changes) versus (2) remaining in the analogue treatment context in which the alternative response was differentially reinforced (ABB context changes). Experiment 1 arranged reinforcement of button pressing with points exchangeable for money in university students. Experiment 2 arranged reinforcement of lever pressing with food for rats. Experiment 3 arranged reinforcement of responses to a touchscreen with small bites of food with children diagnosed with ASD. Overall, resurgence of target responding tended to be greater when returning to the original training context (A) than when remaining in the analogue treatment context (B). These findings suggest context changes with differential reinforcement treatments could exacerbate the recurrence of problem behavior resulting from reductions in treatment integrity through failure to reinforce appropriate behavior.     

Measurement of nontargeted problem behavior during investigations of resurgence

Resurgence occurs when a previously extinguished behavior reemerges once a more recently reinforced behavior is placed on extinction. Previous research has suggested that nontargeted responses within the same response class recur alongside target-response resurgence (e.g., da Silva, Maxwell, & Lattal, 2008; Lieving, Hagopian, Long, & O'Connor, 2004). The purpose of this two-experiment investigation was to examine target response resurgence while simultaneously measuring the occurrence of nontargeted responses. Three children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder who displayed multiple topographies of problem behavior participated. In Experiment 1, a three-phase resurgence procedure was conducted and all three participants displayed target-response resurgence accompanied by the emergence of nontargeted forms of problem behavior. These findings were replicated in Experiment 2 using a 30-min assessment procedure. The implications of these findings as they pertain to the treatment of severe problem behavior and utility of a brief relapse assessment are discussed.     

Resurgence and repeated within-session progressive-interval thinning of alternative reinforcement

Resurgence of a previously suppressed target behavior is common when reinforcement for a more recently reinforced alternative behavior is thinned. To better characterize such resurgence, these experiments examined repeated within-session alternative reinforcement thinning using a progressive-interval (PI) schedule with rats. In Experiment 1, a transition from a high rate of alternative reinforcement to a within-session PI schedule generated robust resurgence, but subsequent complete removal of alternative reinforcement produced no additional resurgence. Experiment 2 replicated these findings and showed similar effects with a fixed-interval (FI) schedule arranging similarly reduced session-wide rates of alternative reinforcement. Thus, the lack of additional resurgence following repeated exposure to the PI schedule was likely due to the low overall obtained rate of alternative reinforcement provided by the PI schedule, rather than to exposure to within-session reinforcement thinning per se. In both experiments, target responding increased at some point in the session during schedule thinning and continued across the rest of the session. Rats exposed to a PI schedule showed resurgence later in the session and after more cumulative alternative reinforcers than those exposed to an FI schedule. The results suggest the potential importance of further exploring how timing and change-detection mechanisms might be involved in resurgence.     

Resurgence and alternative‐reinforcer magnitude

Resurgence is defined as an increase in the frequency of a previously reinforced target response when an alternative source of reinforcement is suspended. Despite an extensive body of research examining factors that affect resurgence, the effects of alternative‐reinforcer magnitude have not been examined. Thus, the present experiments aimed to fill this gap in the literature. In Experiment 1, rats pressed levers for single‐pellet reinforcers during Phase 1. In Phase 2, target‐lever pressing was extinguished, and alternative‐lever pressing produced either five‐pellet, one‐pellet, or no alternative reinforcement. In Phase 3, alternative reinforcement was suspended to test for resurgence. Five‐pellet alternative reinforcement produced faster elimination and greater resurgence of target‐lever pressing than one‐pellet alternative reinforcement. In Experiment 2, effects of decreasing alternative‐reinforcer magnitude on resurgence were examined. Rats pressed levers and pulled chains for six‐pellet reinforcers during Phases 1 and 2, respectively. In Phase 3, alternative reinforcement was decreased to three pellets for one group, one pellet for a second group, and suspended altogether for a third group. Shifting from six‐pellet to one‐pellet alternative reinforcement produced as much resurgence as suspending alternative reinforcement altogether, while shifting from six pellets to three pellets did not produce resurgence. These results suggest that alternative‐reinforcer magnitude has effects on elimination and resurgence of target behavior that are similar to those of alternative‐reinforcer rate. Thus, both suppression of target behavior during alternative reinforcement and resurgence when conditions of alternative reinforcement are altered may be related to variables that affect the value of the alternative‐reinforcement source.     

Resurgence as Choice in Context: Treatment duration and on/off alternative reinforcement

Resurgence as Choice (RaC) is a quantitative theory suggesting that an increase in an extinguished target behavior with subsequent extinction of an alternative behavior (i.e., resurgence) is governed by the same processes as choice more generally. We present data from an experiment with rats examining a range of treatment durations with alternative reinforcement plus extinction and demonstrate that increases in treatment duration produce small but reliable decreases in resurgence. Although RaC predicted the relation between target responding and treatment duration, the model failed in other respects. First, contrary to predictions, the present experiment also replicated previous findings that exposure to cycling on/off alternative reinforcement reduces resurgence. Second, RaC did a poor job simultaneously accounting for target and alternative behaviors across conditions. We present a revised model incorporating a role for more local signaling effects of reinforcer deliveries or their absence on response allocation. Such signaling effects are suggested to impact response allocation above and beyond the values of the target and alternative behaviors as longer-term repositories of experience. The new model provides an excellent account of the data and can be viewed as an integration of RaC and a quantitative approximation of some aspects of Context Theory.     

Punishment of an alternative behavior generates resurgence of a previously extinguished target behavior

Resurgence is often defined as the recurrence of an extinguished behavior when a more recently reinforced alternative behavior is also extinguished. Resurgence has also been observed when the alternative behavior is devalued by other means (e.g., reinforcement rate or magnitude reductions). The present study investigated whether punishment of an alternative behavior would generate resurgence. A target response was reinforced during Phase 1 and then extinguished in Phase 2 while an alternative response was reinforced. During Phase 3, response‐dependent foot shocks were superimposed on the schedule of reinforcement for the alternative response and shock intensity was escalated gradually across sessions. Resurgence of the target response was reliably observed, mostly at higher intensities. The effect was replicated in two subsequent exposures to the sequence of conditions, with resurgence tending to occur at the lowest foot shock intensity. These results suggest that devaluation of an alternative behavior via punishment can generate resurgence. Although it is difficult to reconcile the overall pattern of results with Bouton's context account, these findings are consistent with the suggestion that resurgence results from a “worsening of conditions” for the alternative behavior and with the formalization of that suggestion in terms of a choice‐based matching‐law account (i.e., Resurgence as Choice).     

Resurgence of previously taught academic responses

Resurgence is often discussed in relation to the relapse of undesirable behavior. However, resurgence may also describe the recurrence of socially appropriate behavior, including academic responding. The recurrence of academic responses following periods of extinction may aid in the solution of novel problems. The aims of this study were to evaluate the resurgence of complex, desirable behavior related to college-level instruction and to explore problem form as an aspect of environmental context. Each participant was taught 2 response chains to solve quadratic equations across experimental phases, followed by a phase in which neither chain resulted in the correct solution (extinction). During Experiment 1, the equations presented during extinction resembled those presented during reinforcement of the alternative response. Of the 8 participants in Experiment 1, 4 attempted to use the first-taught chain to solve an equation in the extinction phase. During Experiment 2, the equations presented during extinction resembled those presented during reinforcement of the target response. Of the 8 participants in Experiment 2, 6 attempted to use the first-taught chain to solve an equation in the extinction phase. Results demonstrate the resurgence of academic responses and suggest that the form of the problem may constitute a context that affects resurgence.     

A systematic review of enhanced resurgence paradigms

Following successful treatment in which problem behavior is reduced, it may reemerge as a function of changes in contextual stimuli or the worsening of reinforcement conditions for an alternative response. Although understudied, preliminary research suggests that simultaneous changes in contextual stimuli and reinforcement conditions may represent particularly exigent treatment challenges that create the condition for additive or superadditive relapse. The purpose of the present review was to systematically examine the relapse literature involving simultaneous changes in contextual stimuli and reinforcement conditions in relapse tests and experimental preparations arranged to evaluate their effect on response recovery. We identified 16 empirical articles spanning 27 experiments. Although all experiments included at least one condition that experienced a change in contextual stimuli and worsening of alternative reinforcement conditions, only two experiments included the comparison conditions needed to precisely evaluate additive and superadditive relapse. Our findings establish the preclinical generality of relapse effects associated with simultaneous changes to reinforcement conditions and contextual stimuli across a range of subjects, schedule arrangements, response topographies, reinforcers, and types of contextual changes. We make several recommendations for future research based on our findings from this nascent and clinically relevant subdomain of the relapse literature.     

Noncontingent reinforcement without extinction plus differential reinforcement of alternative behavior during treatment of problem behavior

The effects of noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) without extinction during treatment of problem behavior maintained by social positive reinforcement were evaluated for five individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. A continuous NCR schedule was gradually thinned to a fixed‐time 5‐min schedule. If problem behavior increased during NCR schedule thinning, a continuous NCR schedule was reinstated and NCR schedule thinning was repeated with differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) included. Results showed an immediate decrease in all participants’ problem behavior during continuous NCR, and problem behavior maintained at low levels during NCR schedule thinning for three participants. Problem behavior increased and maintained at higher rates during NCR schedule thinning for two other participants; however, the addition of DRA to the intervention resulted in decreased problem behavior and increased mands.     

Concurrent reinforcement schedules: behavior change and maintenance without extinction

We evaluated the effects of concurrent schedules of reinforcement on negatively reinforced problem behavior and task completion with 3 children with autism. Results indicated that problem behavior occurred at high levels and relatively few tasks were completed when problem behavior produced a break (from tasks) and task completion produced either no consequence or a break. By contrast, problem behavior was eliminated and tasks were completed when problem behavior produced a break and task completion produced a break with access to preferred activities. Treatment gains were maintained without the use of extinction when the response requirement was increased and the schedule of reinforcement was thinned.     

Prevention of the development of problem behavior: A laboratory model

Few studies have isolated the preventive efficacy of common behavioral strategies like noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) and differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA). The purpose of the current study was to develop and evaluate a laboratory model of these two problem behavior prevention strategies. Undergraduate students participated in a computer simulation, in which clicks to a designated area of the computer screen were analogous to the emergence of problem behavior. The responding of participants in a control group, who experienced a percentile schedule used to mimic the shaping of problem behavior, was compared to that of participants in two experimental groups, each with a history of either DRA or NCR. Between‐subjects group comparisons showed that both intervention strategies were equally effective in the prevention of our analog to problem behavior when compared to the control group. The strengths and limitations of a laboratory model for prevention are discussed in light of recent applied work in this area.     

Behavioral momentum theory fails to account for the effects of reinforcement rate on resurgence

The behavioral‐momentum model of resurgence predicts reinforcer rates within a resurgence preparation should have three effects on target behavior. First, higher reinforcer rates in baseline (Phase 1) produce more persistent target behavior during extinction plus alternative reinforcement. Second, higher rate alternative reinforcement during Phase 2 generates greater disruption of target responding during extinction. Finally, higher rates of either reinforcement source should produce greater responding when alternative reinforcement is suspended in Phase 3. Recent empirical reports have produced mixed results in terms of these predictions. Thus, the present experiment further examined reinforcer‐rate effects on persistence and resurgence. Rats pressed target levers for high‐rate or low‐rate variable‐interval food during Phase 1. In Phase 2, target‐lever pressing was extinguished, an alternative nose‐poke became available, and nose‐poking produced either high‐rate variable‐interval, low‐rate variable‐interval, or no (an extinction control) alternative reinforcement. Alternative reinforcement was suspended in Phase 3. For groups that received no alternative reinforcement, target‐lever pressing was less persistent following high‐rate than low‐rate Phase‐1 reinforcement. Target behavior was more persistent with low‐rate alternative reinforcement than with high‐rate alternative reinforcement or extinction alone. Finally, no differences in Phase‐3 responding were observed for groups that received either high‐rate or low‐rate alternative reinforcement, and resurgence occurred only following high‐rate alternative reinforcement. These findings are inconsistent with the momentum‐based model of resurgence. We conclude this model mischaracterizes the effects of reinforcer rates on persistence and resurgence of operant behavior.