What is an extinction burst?: A case study in the analysis of transitional behavior

Among the tactics of experimental science discussed by Sidman (1960) were those used to study transitional behavior. Drawing from his insights, this review considers an often cited but infrequently analyzed aspect of the transition from reinforcement to extinction: the extinction burst. In particular, the review seeks to answer the question posed in its title. The generic definition of an extinction burst as an increase in response rate following the onset of extinction is found to be wanting, raising more questions than it answers. Because questions of definition in science usually come down to those of measurement, the answer to the title's question is suggested to be found in how behavior prior to extinction is maintained and measured, when and how extinction is introduced, and where in time and how behavior early in extinction is measured. This analysis suggests that a single, uniform, and precise definition of the extinction burst is misguided. Examining how each of these facets contributes to what has been described generically as the extinction burst is a small, but important, part of Sidman's methodological legacy to the experimental analysis of behavior.     

Prevalence of the extinction burst and its attenuation during treatment

Although extinction has been an effective treatment for a variety of behavior disorders, its use may be associated with several adverse side effects, the most common being an initial increase in the frequency of the target response, called an "extinction burst." We attempted to determine the prevalence of the extinction burst in applied research and its possible attenuation with other operant procedures. An analysis of 113 sets of extinction data indicated that bursting may not be as common as previously assumed (it occurred in 24% of the cases) and may be less likely when extinction is implemented with alternative procedures rather than as the sole intervention (bursting was evident in 12% of the former cases and 36% of the latter).     

The effects of response cost and response restriction on a multiple-response repertoire with humans

In two experiments a multiple-response repertoire of four free-operant responses was developed with university students as subjects using monetary gain as reinforcement. Following baseline, one of the responses was reduced either by making monetary loss contingent upon it (response cost) or by removing it from the repertoire (response restriction). In Experiment 1 a multielement baseline design was employed in which baseline and restriction or response-cost contingencies alternated semirandomly every 3 minutes. In Experiment 2 a reversal design was employed (i.e., baseline, restriction or response cost, then baseline), and each response required a different amount of effort. Both experiments had the following results: (a) The target response decreased substantially; (b) most nontarget responses increased, and the rest remained near their baseline levels; and (c) no support was found for Dunham's hierarchical, most frequent follower, or greatest temporal similarity rules. For several subjects, the least probable responses during baseline increased most, and the most probable responses increased least. Furthermore, in Experiment 2, responses with the lowest frequency of reinforcement increased most (for all 7 subjects), and those with the greatest frequency of reinforcement increased least (for 5 subjects).     

The control response in assessing resurgence: Useful or compromised tool?

Resurgence experiments sometimes include an operandum on which a history of reinforcement has not been experimentally established. The purpose of this control operandum is to rule out a generalized increase in responding when the alternative response is extinguished as being the cause of the resurgent target response. A review of the results of experiments conducted with both nonhumans and humans in which a control operandum was included shows that control- operandum responding is more common in the latter and almost nonexistent in the former. Both the presence and absence of responding on the control operandum, however, are subject to multiple interpretations thereby rendering it a compromised tool. Alternatives to using a control operandum to rule out extinction induction as the basis for resurgence include a preresurgence test control procedure and a differential resurgence procedure.     

Switching from competition to sharing or cooperation at large response requirements: competition requires more responding

Two pairs of high-school students matched-to-sample for money. On each trial, a subject could either respond on one lever to take the matching-to-sample problem himself (taking response) or respond on a second lever to give the problem to his coactor (giving response). The first subject to complete the response requirement determined the distribution of the problem. Competition maximizes the amount of responding over trials, i.e., both subjects make taking responses on each trial. Sharing and cooperation minimize responding: only one subject makes a taking response (sharing) or a giving response (cooperation) on each trial, and the subjects alternate responding such that there is an equitable distribution of responses and reinforcers over trials. Large increases in the fixed-ratio response requirement to distribute problems produced: (1) a switch from competition to sharing or cooperation, (2) the expected concomitant change from inequitable to equitable distributions of reinforcers, and (3) a reduction in the amount of responding for three of the four subjects. Previous animal research has shown that large response requirements may have aversive properties. Switching from competition to sharing or cooperation at large response requirements allows a reduction in responding and, at the same time, a moderate number of reinforcers for each subject.     

A METHODOLOGY FOR DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN EXTINCTION AND PUNISHMENT EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH RESPONSE BLOCKING

We present one method for distinguishing between extinction and punishment effects. The proportion of responses that produced a consequence (blocking) was varied while hand mouthing was treated in a man diagnosed with profound mental retardation. Response patterns across the schedule changes suggested that the blocking procedure functioned as a punishing event.     

DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN EXTINCTION AND PUNISHMENT EFFECTS OF RESPONSE BLOCKING: A REPLICATION

Lerman and Iwata (1996) described a method for distinguishing between sensory extinction and punishment effects of response blocking on self-injurious behavior maintained independent of social contingencies. Results of their study suggested that blocking decreased the self-injurious hand mouthing of their participant via punishment. The current replication of these procedures with the self-injurious eye poking of a woman with developmental disabilities produced patterns of responding indicating that, for this participant, blocking functioned as an extinction procedure.