Factors that encourage generalization from extinction to test reduce resurgence of an extinguished operant response

Two experiments investigated methods that reduce the resurgence of an extinguished behavior (R1) that occurs when reinforcement for an alternative behavior (R2) is discontinued. In Experiment 1, R1 was first trained and then extinguished while R2 was reinforced during a 5‐ or 25‐session treatment phase. For half the rats, sessions in which R2 was reinforced alternated with sessions in which R2 was extinguished. Controls received the same number of treatment sessions, but R2 was never extinguished. When reinforcement for R2 was discontinued, R1 resurged in the controls. However, the alternating groups showed reduced resurgence, and the magnitude of the resurgences observed during their R2 extinction sessions decreased systematically over Phase 2. In Experiment 2, R1 was first reinforced with one outcome (O1). The rats then had two types of double‐alternating treatment sessions. In one type, R1 was extinguished and R2 produced O2. In the other, R1 was unavailable and R2 produced O3. R1 resurgence was weakened when O2, but not O3, was delivered freely during testing. Together, the results suggest that methods that encourage generalization between R1 extinction and resurgence testing weaken the resurgence effect. They are not consistent with an account of resurgence proposed by Shahan and Craig (2017).     

Evaluation of stimulus intensity fading on reduction of rapid eating in a child with autism

This study assessed the effects of a vibrating pager on reduction of rapid eating. The study also evaluated two strategies for fading the pager, by intensity and by frequency. The pager was successful in decreasing the pace of eating to an appropriate level and the pager prompt was successfully faded. Fading by frequency was ineffective in maintaining an appropriate pace of eating while intensity fading was successful.     

The competition-among-relations-in-nominals theory of conceptual combination: implications for stimulus class formation and class expansion

One way in which new concepts are added to the conceptual system is through conceptual combination. The competition-among-relations-in-nominals (CARIN) theory (Gagné & Shoben, 1997) proposes that conceptual combination involves specifying a thematic relation (e.g., noun MADE OF modifier) to link the constituent concepts (e.g., chocolate and bee). This theory claims that relations have different strengths for various concepts that correspond to how often a modifier and relation have been paired in previous encounters with combined concepts and that this relational knowledge strongly affects the ease with which combined concepts can be formed. A mathematical model that incorporates key claims of the theory is presented, and empirical findings that are relevant to evaluating the CARIN theory are reviewed. The parallels between the CARIN theory and approaches to stimulus class formation are also discussed.     

Generalization of tacting actions in children with autism

This intervention compared the effects of two procedures on the generalization of a tacting repertoire (labeling) in 6 children with autism spectrum disorder. In one procedure the verbal antecedent stimulus “What is she doing?” appeared together with a person performing an action; in the other procedure, the antecedent stimulus was just the presence of the action. In initial tests, children emitted tacts only when the action was presented with the verbal antecedent. Thereafter, they learned to tact an action without the verbal antecedent and received tests to evaluate generalization to another action. Results indicated that in order to obtain generalization of tacting actions, it was necessary to learn to tact other actions without the verbal antecedent as well as learning to tact the action with the verbal antecedent. These findings have relevance for generalization of tacting actions from control by verbal antecedents to natural conditions and the production of spontaneous language.     

The distinction between positive and negative reinforcement: use with care

It is customary in behavior analysis to distinguish between positive and negative reinforcement in terms of whether the reinforcing event involves onset or offset of a stimulus. In a previous article (Baron & Galizio, 2005), we concluded that a distinction of these terms is not only ambiguous but has little if any functional significance. Here, we respond to commentaries by a group of distinguished behavior analysts about the issues we raised. Although several of the commentators argued for preservation of the distinction, we remain unconvinced that its benefits outweigh its weaknesses. Because this distinction is so deeply embedded in the language of behavior analysis, we hardly expect that it will be abandoned. However, we hope that the terms positive and negative reinforcement will be used with circumspection and with full knowledge of the confusion they can engender.