The role of adventitious reinforcement during differential reinforcement of other behavior: A systematic replication

Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) is commonly used to decrease problem behavior by presenting reinforcers contingent upon the absence of a target response. Although it is well demonstrated that DROs decrease response rates, the processes producing these decreases are not well understood. The present study systematically replicated previous research assessing whether adventitious reinforcement of alternative behavior contributes to the effectiveness of DRO. We presented university students with two options on a computer and reinforced target responding on a variable-ratio schedule. Next, we compared decreases in target-response rates and any increases in alternative responding during DRO schedules versus yoked variable-time schedules or extinction probes. DRO schedules resulted in the lowest target-response rate and highest alternative-response rate. These findings generally provide some support for the adventitious reinforcement of “other” behavior.     

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.     

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.     

Effects of reinforcement rate and reinforcer magnitude on choice behavior of humans

Two experiments with human subjects investigated the effects of rate of reinforcement and reinforcer magnitude upon choice. In Experiment 1, each of five subjects responded on four concurrent variable-interval schedules. In contrast to previous studies using non-human organisms, relative response rate did not closely match relative rate of reinforcement. Discrepancies ranged from 0.03 to 0.43 (mean equal to 0.19). Similar discrepancies were found between relative amount of time spent responding on each schedule and the corresponding relative rates of reinforcement. In Experiment 2, in which reinforcer magnitude was varied for each of five subjects, similar discrepancies ranging from 0.05 to 0.50 (mean equal to 0.21), were found between relative response rate and relative proportion of reinforcers received. In both experiments, changeover rates were lower on the long-interval concurrent schedules than on the short-interval ones. The results suggest that simple application of previous generalizations regarding the effects of reinforcement rate and reinforcer magnitude on choice for variable-interval schedules does not accurately describe human behavior in a simple laboratory situation.     

The linear system theory's account of behavior maintained by variable-ratio schedules.

The mathematical theory of linear systems, which has been used successfully to describe behavior maintained by variable-interval schedules, is extended to describe behavior maintained by variable-ratio schedules. The result of the analysis is a pair of equations, one of which expresses response rate on a variable-ratio schedule as a function of the mean ratio requirement (n) that the schedule arranges. The other equation expresses response rate on a variable-ratio schedule as a function of reinforcement rate. Both equations accurately describe existing data from variable-ratio schedules. The theory accounts for two additional characteristics of behavior maintained by variable-ratio schedules; namely, the appearance of strained, two-valued (i.e., zero or very rapid) responding at large ns, and the abrupt cessation of responding at a boundary n. The theory also accounts for differences between behavior on variable-interval and variable-ratio schedules, including (a) the occurrence of strained responding on variable-ratio but not on variable-interval schedules, (b) the abrupt cessation of responding on occurrence of higher response rates on variable-ratio than on variable-interval schedules. Furthermore, given data from a series of variable-interval schedules and from a series of concurrent variable-ratio variable-interval schedules, the theory permits quantitative prediction of many properties of behavior on single-alternative variable-ratio schedules. The linear system theory's combined account of behavior on variable-interval and variable-ratio schedules is superior to existing versions of six other mathematical theories of variable-interval and variable-ratio responding.     

Effects of concurrent response-independent reinforcement on fixed-interval schedule performance

In three experiments, behavior maintained by fixed-interval schedules changed when response-independent reinforcement was delivered concurrently according to fixed- or variable-time schedules. In Experiment I, a pattern of positively accelerated responding during fixed interval was changed to a linear pattern when response-independent reinforcement occurred under a variable-time schedule. Overall response rates (total responses/total time) decreased as the frequency of response-independent reinforcement increased. Experiment II showed that the response-rate changes in the first experiment were controlled by the response-reinforcer relation, but the changes in patterns of responding were similar whether concurrently available reinforcement at varying times was response-dependent or response-independent. In the final experiment, the addition of response-independent reinforcement at fixed times to a fixed-interval schedule resulted in changes in both local and overall response rates and in the occurrence of positively accelerated responding between reinforcements. These results suggest that the temporal distribution of reinforcers determines response patterns and that both the response-reinforcement dependency and the schedule of reinforcement determine overall response rates during concurrently scheduled response-dependent and response-independent reinforcement.     

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.     

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.     

Tests of behavior momentum in simple and multiple schedules with rats and pigeons.

Four experiments examined the relationship between rate of reinforcement and resistance to change in rats' and pigeons' responses under simple and multiple schedules of reinforcement. In Experiment 1, 28 rats responded under either simple fixed-ratio, variable-ratio, fixed-interval, or variable-interval schedules; in Experiment 2, 3 pigeons responded under simple fixed-ratio schedules. Under each schedule, rate of reinforcement varied across four successive conditions. In Experiment 3, 14 rats responded under either a multiple fixed-ratio schedule or a multiple fixed-interval schedule, each with two components that differed in rate of reinforcement. In Experiment 4, 7 pigeons responded under either a multiple fixed-ratio or a multiple fixed-interval schedule, each with three components that also differed in rate of reinforcement. Under each condition of each experiment, resistance to change was studied by measuring schedule-controlled performance under conditions with prefeeding, response-independent food during the schedule or during timeouts that separated components of the multiple schedules, and by measuring behavior under extinction. There were no consistent differences between rats and pigeons. There was no direct relationship between rates of reinforcement and resistance to change when rates of reinforcement varied across successive conditions in the simple schedules. By comparison, in the multiple schedules there was a direct relationship between rates of reinforcement and resistance to change during most tests of resistance to change. The major exception was delivering response-independent food during the schedule; this disrupted responding, but there was no direct relationship between rates of reinforcement and resistance to change in simple- or multiple-schedule contexts. The data suggest that rate of reinforcement determines resistance to change in multiple schedules, but that this relationship does not hold under simple schedules.     

The effect of signaled reinforcement on rats' fixed-interval responding

Four experiments examined the effect on rats' response rate of presenting a brief (500 ms) stimulus simultaneously with the delivery of food on fixed-interval (FI) schedules. In Experiment 1, reinforcement signals that were spatially diffuse (both tones and lights) elevated rates of responding, but responding was attenuated by localized visual stimuli. The remaining experiments examined the signal-induced potentiation of responding. In Experiment 2, a tone reinforcement signal potentiated response rates on an FI schedule, but attenuated response rates on a variable-interval (VI) schedule. This difference was obtained even though the overall rate of responding was equated on the two schedules before the introduction of the signal. Signal-induced potentiation of responding occurred over a range of FI values employed in Experiment 3. In Experiment 4, presenting a reinforcement signal when high local rates of response had occurred immediately before reinforcement resulted in potentiated rates of responding on an FI schedule. The opposite effect on response rate occurred when the reinforcement signal followed only low local rates of response. These results indicate that a variety of factors influence the effects of a reinforcement signal. They imply, however, that the local rate of response at the time of reinforcement is a key factor in establishing the nature of the signaling effect.     

Induced attack during fixed-ratio and matched-time schedules of food presentation

Adjunctive or induced behavior is generated during a variety of schedules of reinforcement. Several theoretical conceptualizations suggest that rate of reinforcement is the primary variable controlling the strength or levels of induced behavior. The operant response requirement within the schedule context has not been extensively studied as a determinant of induced responding. In the present study, levels of induced attack by food-deprived pigeons against restrained conspecifics were compared during response-dependent and response-independent schedules of food presentation equated or yoked interval-by-interval for reinforcement frequency. Experiment 1 compared levels of attack induced by fixed-ratio schedules of key pecking and yoked "matched-time" schedules. Experiment 2 similarly compared chained fixed-ratio 1 fixed-ratio 74 and yoked chained matched-time matched-time schedules. In both experiments, the response-dependent schedules generated greater levels (amount and probability) of induced attack than the response-independent time-based schedules. Thus, the ratio response requirement may be an important determinant of levels of induced responding, and the lower levels of attack observed during the response-independent condition may not be due to the absence of stimuli predicting food presentations. It is concluded that rate of reinforcement is not the sole variable determining levels of induced responding and that response-based and time-based schedules differ in their generation of induced responding.     

Cooperative responding in rats maintained by fixed‐ and variable‐ratio schedules

The present study investigated the effects of fixed‐ratio (FR) and variable‐ratio (VR) reinforcement schedules on patterns of cooperative responding in pairs of rats. Experiment 1 arranged FR 1, FR 10, and VR 10 schedules to establish cooperative responding (water delivery depended on the joint responding of two rats). Cooperative response rates and proportions were higher under intermittent schedules than under continuous reinforcement. The FR 10 schedule generated a break‐and‐run pattern, whereas the VR 10 schedule generated a relatively high and constant rate pattern. Experiment 2 evaluated the effects of parametric manipulations of FR and VR schedules on cooperative responding. Rates and proportions of cooperative responding generally increased between ratio sizes of 1 and 5 but showed no consistent trend as the ratio increased from 5 to 10. Experiment 3 contrasted cooperative responding between an FR6 schedule and a yoked control schedule. Coordinated behavior occurred at a higher rate under the former schedule. The present study showed that external consequences and the schedules under which the delivery of these consequences are based, select patterns of coordinated behavior.     

Multiple determinants of the effects of reinforcement magnitude on free-operant response rates

Four experiments examined the effects of increasing the number of food pellets given to hungry rats for a lever-press response. On a simple variable-interval 60-s schedule, increased number of pellets depressed response rates (Experiment 1). In Experiment 2, the decrease in response rate as a function of increased reinforcement magnitude was demonstrated on a variable-interval 30-s schedule, but enhanced rates of response were obtained with the same increase in reinforcement magnitude on a variable-ratio 30 schedule. In Experiment 3, higher rates of responding were maintained by the component of a concurrent variable-interval 60-s variable-interval 60-s schedule associated with a higher reinforcement magnitude. In Experiment 4, higher rates of response were produced in the component of a multiple variable-interval 60-s variable-interval 60-s schedule associated with the higher reinforcement magnitude. It is suggested that on simple schedules greater reinforcer magnitudes shape the reinforced pattern of responding more effectively than do smaller reinforcement magnitudes. This effect is, however, overridden by another process, such a contrast, when two magnitudes are presented within a single session on two-component schedules.     

The long-term effect of high- and low-rate responding histories on fixed-interval responding in rats

Tell rats were given extended lever-press training on a fixed-interval (FI) 30-s food reinforcement schedule from the outset or following exposure to one or two previous reinforcement schedules. For 4 rats the previots schedule was either fixed-ratio 20, which generated high response rates, or differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate 20 s, which produced low response rates. For 4 additional rats the extended training on FI 30 s was preceded by experience with two schedules: fixed-ratio 20 followed by differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate 20 s; or the same two schedules in the reverse order. Fixed-interval response rates were initially affected by the immediately preceding schedule, but after 80 to 100 sessions, all traces of prior schedule history had disappeared. The results also showed no long-term effect of schedule history on the interfood-interval patterns of responding on the FI 30-s schedule. These results support one of the most central tenets of the experimental analysis of behavior: control by the immediate consequences of behavior.     

Variable-ratio schedules of timeout from avoidance: effects of d-amphetamine and morphine.

Rats were trained on concurrent schedules in which pressing one lever postponed shock and pressing the other lever produced periods of signaled timeout from avoidance on variable-ratio schedules. These procedures generated high rates of timeout-reinforced responding and provided a baseline for studying the effects of drugs on behavior maintained by different types of negative reinforcement (shock postponement vs. timeout). Morphine (2.5 to 10.0 mg/kg) reduced behavior maintained by timeout at doses that increased or had no effect on avoidance responding. In contrast, d-amphetamine (0.125 to 2.0 mg/kg) produced large increases in timeout responding at doses that had minimal effect on avoidance in rats trained on variable-interval and variable-ratio schedules. Thus, the event-dependent effects of morphine, observed in previous studies in which timeout responding was maintained at low rates by interval schedules, were replicated with high timeout rates maintained by variable-ratio schedules. The effects of d-amphetamine could also be described as "event dependent" because timeout responding was stimulated more than avoidance regardless of the maintenance schedule or baseline rate.     

Effects of signaling on temporal control of behavior in response‐initiated fixed intervals

Behavior and events distributed in time can serve as markers that signal delays to future events. The majority of timing research has focused on how behavior changes as the time to some event, usually food availability, decreases. The primary objective of the two experiments presented here was to assess how behavior changes as time passes between two time markers when the first time marker was manipulated but the second, food delivery, was held constant. Pigeons were exposed to fixed‐interval, response‐initiated fixed‐interval, and signaled response‐initiated fixed‐interval 15‐ and 30‐s schedules of reinforcement. In Experiment 1, first‐response latencies were systematically shorter in the signaled response‐initiated schedules than response‐initiated schedules, suggesting that the first response was a more effective time marker when it was signaled. In Experiment 2, responding in no‐food (i.e. “peak”) trials indicated that timing accuracy was equivalent in the three schedule types. Compared to fixed interval schedules, timing precision was reduced in the signaled response‐initiated schedules and was lowest in response‐initiated schedules. Results from Experiments 1 and 2 coupled with previous research suggest that the overall “informativeness” of a time marker relative to other events and behaviors in the environment may determine its efficacy.     

Effects of response preference on resistance to change

Treatments based on differential reinforcement of alternative behavior, such as functional communication training, are widely used. Research regarding the maintenance of related treatment effects is limited. Nevin and Wacker (2013) provided a conceptual framework, rooted in behavioral momentum theory, for the study of treatment maintenance that addressed two components: (a) reemergence of problem behavior, and (b) continued expression of appropriate behavior. In the few studies on this topic, focus has been on variables impacting the reemergence of problem behavior, with fewer studies evaluating the persistence of appropriate behavior. Given the findings from applied research related to functional communication training, variables related to response topography, such as response preference, may impact this aspect of maintenance. In the current study, the impact of response preference on persistence was evaluated in the context of functional communication training for individuals who did not exhibit problem behavior (Experiment 1) and for individuals with a history of reinforcement for problem behavior (Experiment 2). High‐preferred mands were more persistent than low‐preferred mands. These findings suggest that response related variables, such as response preference, impact response persistence and further suggest that response related variables should be considered when developing interventions such as functional communication training.     

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.     

Assessing reinforcers under progressive schedule requirements.

Recent research findings suggest that reinforcing stimuli may be differentially effective as response requirements increase. We extended this line of research by evaluating responding under increasing schedule requirements via progressive‐ratio schedules and behavioral economic analyses. The differential effectiveness of preferred stimuli in treating destructive behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement also was examined. Results showed that one of two stimuli was associated with more responding under increasing schedule requirements for the 4 participants. Furthermore, stimuli associated with more responding under increasing schedule requirements generally were more effective in treating destructive behavior than stimuli associated with less responding. These data suggest that progressive‐ratio schedules and behavioral economic analyses may be useful for developing a new technology for reinforcer identification. From a clinical perspective, these results suggest that two reinforcers may be similarly effective for low‐effort tasks and differentially effective for high‐effort tasks.     

Competitive fixed-interval performance in humans

Two persons responded in the same session in separate cubicles, but under a single schedule of reinforcement. Each time reinforcement was programmed, only the first response to occur, that is, the response of only one of the subjects, was reinforced. “Competitive” behavior that developed under these conditions was examined in three experiments. In Experiment 1 subjects responded under fixed-interval (FI) 30-s, 60-s, and 90-s schedules of reinforcement. Under the competition condition, relative to baseline conditions, the response rates were higher and the pattern was “break-and-run.” In Experiment 2, subjects were exposed first to a conventional FI schedule and then to an FI competition schedule. Next, they were trained to respond under either a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) or fixed-ratio (FR) schedule, and finally, the initial FI competition condition was reinstated. In this second exposure to the FI competition procedure, DRL subjects responded at lower rates than were emitted during the initial exposure to that condition and FR subjects responded at higher rates. For all subjects, however, responding gradually returned to the break-and-run pattern that had occurred during the first FI competition condition. Experiment 3 assessed potential variables contributing to the effects of the competitive FI contingencies during Experiments 1 and 2. Subjects were exposed to FI schedules where (a) probability of reinforcement at completion of each fixed interval was varied, or (b) a limited hold was in effect for reinforcement. Only under the limited hold was responding similar to that observed in previous experiments.