Prevalence of resurgence of destructive behavior when thinning reinforcement schedules during functional communication training

Functional communication training is a well‐established treatment for socially reinforced destructive behavior that typically includes differential reinforcement of the functional communication response (FCR) in combination with extinction of destructive behavior. However, when the schedule of reinforcement for the FCR is thinned, destructive behavior may resurge (e.g., Greer, Fisher, Saini, Owen, & Jones, 2016). Currently, data are unavailable on the prevalence and characteristics of resurgence during reinforcement schedule thinning. In this study, we evaluated the prevalence of resurgence during reinforcement schedule thinning on a per‐case and per‐schedule‐step basis and also evaluated the magnitude of resurgence in relation to the functions of destructive behavior. We observed resurgence in 19 of the 25 (76%) applications of reinforcement schedule thinning. In some cases, the magnitude of resurgence exceeded the mean levels of destructive behavior observed in baseline. We discuss these results relative to prior translational and applied research on resurgence.     

Further evaluation of differential exposure to establishing operations during functional communication training

Recent research findings (DeRosa, Fisher, & Steege, 2015 ) suggest that minimizing exposure to the establishing operation (EO) for destructive behavior when differential reinforcement interventions like functional communication training (FCT) are introduced may produce more immediate reductions in destructive behavior and prevent or mitigate extinction bursts. We directly tested this hypothesis by introducing FCT with extinction in two conditions, one with limited exposure to the EO (limited EO) and one with more extended exposure to the EO (extended EO) using a combined reversal and multielement design. Results showed that the limited‐EO condition rapidly reduced destructive behavior to low levels during every application, whereas the extended‐EO condition produced an extinction burst in five of six applications. We discuss these findings in relation to the effects of EO exposure on the beneficial and untoward effects of differential reinforcement interventions.     

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.     

Baseline response rates affect resistance to change

The effect of response rates on resistance to change, measured as resistance to extinction, was examined in two experiments. In Experiment 1, responding in transition from a variable‐ratio schedule and its yoked‐interval counterpart to extinction was compared with pigeons. Following training on a multiple variable‐ratio yoked‐interval schedule of reinforcement, in which response rates were higher in the former component, reinforcement was removed from both components during a single extended extinction session. Resistance to extinction in the yoked‐interval component was always either greater or equal to that in the variable‐ratio component. In Experiment 2, resistance to extinction was compared for two groups of rats that exhibited either high or low response rates when maintained on identical variable‐interval schedules. Resistance to extinction was greater for the lower‐response‐rate group. These results suggest that baseline response rate can contribute to resistance to change. Such effects, however, can only be revealed when baseline response rate and reinforcement rate are disentangled (Experiments 1 and 2) from the more usual circumstance where the two covary. Furthermore, they are more cleanly revealed when the programmed contingencies controlling high and low response rates are identical, as in Experiment 2.     

CLIMATE CHANGE IN CONTEXT: STRESS,SHOCK, AND THE CRUCIBLE OF LIVINGKIND

An increasing number of environmentally knowledgeable observers and activists comprehend the situation faced by the emerging global civilization and its unsustainable systems, characterized by planet‐altering positive feedback loops arising from human activity. They perceive contemporary natural and cultural developments as the prelude to the imminent collapse of technological civilization and the cataclysmic end of the Anthropocene epoch via a forced passage through the population bottleneck of the impending extinction‐level event which only a remnant of the present biosphere is likely to survive. Should this understanding be accurate, our own time could become the occasion for the greatest choice ever made on Earth: whether to continue things as they are until humanity becomes the chief cause and the chief victim of the now‐unfolding mass extinction; or to make the necessary transition to the awakening of Planet Earth.     

普萘洛尔修复即刻消退产生的二次创伤

恐惧消退能力的受损是创伤后应激障碍(posttraumatic stress disorder, PTSD)的标志之一。以往的研究表明, 相较于延迟消退, 恐惧获得后短时间内进行的消退训练不能形成长时程的消退记忆, 这一现象被称为即刻消退缺损。然而, 目前并不清楚这种缺损是一次性的, 还是会继续影响其后的重消退。实验1中, 大鼠在恐惧习得后1小时(即刻消退)或24小时(延迟消退)开始进行消退训练, 24小时后进行重消退, 再24小时后进行消退记忆的测试。结果显示, 与延迟消退相比, 即刻消退效果缺损, 并引起第二天的重消退也出现效果缺损。实验2中, 恐惧获得后立即给予大鼠盐水或β-肾上腺素受体阻断剂普萘洛尔(10 mg/kg, i.p.), 然后测试即刻消退和重消退的效果。结果显示, 普萘洛尔虽没有阻止即刻消退的缺损, 但避免了重消退出现缺损。总之, 严重创伤后的即刻消退不但无法有效抑制恐惧反应, 还可能造成二次创伤, 会损害恐惧消退能力, 而普萘洛尔可修复即刻消退引起的重消退缺损。这些结果将有助于我们加深对PTSD病理机制和早期干预后果的认识。     

Some effects of praise during the escape condition of the functional analysis

Many researchers provide praise for complying with demands during the escape condition of the functional analysis (FA). However, praise may function as a reinforcer for some individuals which may reduce the aversiveness of task presentation or increase behavior that competes with problem behavior (e.g., compliance with demands). In general, this may result in lower or less stable levels of problem behavior and decrease the efficiency of the FA. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to evaluate some effects of praise on the rate of problem behavior and compliance during the escape condition of the FA in children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. We found that praise did not affect the rate of problem behavior but did increase compliance in three of five subjects. The results of the study and implications for the assessment of problem behavior are discussed.     

Treatment of food selectivity: An evaluation of video modeling of contingencies

Many children with disabilities have feeding problems including, but not limited to, food selectivity and/or food refusal. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of video modeling of contingencies alone and combined with direct exposure to the contingencies in the treatment of food selectivity. Treatment procedures included sequentially introducing videos in which models consumed nonpreferred foods or were exposed to differential reinforcement or differential reinforcement plus escape extinction. In addition, during feeding sessions, participants were exposed to differential reinforcement. Results indicated that video modeling of differential reinforcement plus direct exposure to differential reinforcement may be effective at increasing consumption of some nonpreferred foods, but the results were not replicated across all foods. For one participant, consumption of one food increased with video modeling alone.     

A comparison of rate‐based and latency‐based assessments for determining demand aversiveness

Demand assessments are used to determine the relative aversiveness of demands. This study compared two demand assessments (i.e., rate‐based and latency‐based) proposed in past research with three children with intellectual and developmental disabilities. We compared the hierarchical outcomes of demand aversiveness and efficiency of the two assessments. Differing degrees of correspondence between the assessments was found across participants. The latency‐based measure was most efficient for a participant with high‐rates of problem behavior. The rate‐based assessment was more efficient for a participant with low‐rates of problem behavior. More research is needed to determine when the different assessments should be conducted.     

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.