Effects of signaled and unsignaled alternative reinforcement on persistence and relapse in children and pigeons

Abstract

Three experiments explored the impact of different reinforcer rates for alternative behavior (DRA) on the suppression and post-DRA relapse of target behavior, and the persistence of alternative behavior. All experiments arranged baseline, intervention with extinction of target behavior concurrently with DRA, and post-treatment tests of resurgence or reinstatement, in two- or three-component multiple schedules. Experiment 1, with pigeons, arranged high or low baseline reinforcer rates; both rich and lean DRA schedules reduced target behavior to low levels. When DRA was discontinued, the magnitude of relapse depended on both baseline reinforcer rate and the rate of DRA. Experiment 2, with children exhibiting problem behaviors, arranged an intermediate baseline reinforcer rate and rich or lean signaled DRA. During treatment, both rich and lean DRA rapidly reduced problem behavior to low levels, but post-treatment relapse was generally greater in the DRA-rich than the DRA-lean component. Experiment 3, with pigeons, repeated the low-baseline condition of Experiment 1 with signaled DRA as in Experiment 2. Target behavior decreased to intermediate levels in both DRA-rich and DRA-lean components. Relapse, when it occurred, was directly related to DRA reinforcer rate as in Experiment 2. The post-treatment persistence of alternative behavior was greater in the DRA-rich component in Experiment 1, whereas it was the same or greater in the signaled-DRA-lean component in Experiments 2 and 3. Thus, infrequent signaled DRA may be optimal for effective clinical treatment.

Keywords: alternative reinforcement; children; persistence; pigeons; relapse; signaled DRA.

Fig. A1

Target (BT) and alternative (BA) response rates across phases (P1-P4) of Experiment 1 following high-rate Phase-1 reinforcement for each individual pigeon. Data are aggregated into five-session blocks (response rates only from the last five sessions of Phase 1 are shown).

Fig. A2

Target (BT) and alternative (BA) response rates across phases (P1-P4) of Experiment 1 following low-rate Phase-1 reinforcement for each individual pigeon. Data are aggregated into five-session blocks (response rates only from the last five sessions of Phase 1 are shown).

Figure A3

Target (BT) and alternative (BA) response rates across phases (P1-P4) of Experiment 3 for each individual pigeon. Data are aggregated into five-session blocks (response rates only from the last five sessions of Phase 1 are shown).

Fig. 1

Target (BT) and alternative (BA) response rates across phases (P1-P4) of Experiment 1. Data are averaged across pigeons and aggregated into five-session blocks (response rates only from the last five sessions of Phase 1 are shown). The left panel includes data from the High-Rate baseline condition, and the right panel includes data from the Low-Rate baseline condition. Figures for individual subjects are in Appendices A1 and A2.

Fig. 2

Resurgence of target responding in the DRA-High and DRA-Low components during both baseline conditions of Experiment 1, expressed as the difference in mean proportion-of-baseline response rates from the first five sessions of Phase 3 and the last five sessions of Phase 2. Data for all pigeons are shown. Positive values represent an increase in target responding between these conditions.

Fig. 3

Reinstatement of target responding in all components during both baseline conditions of Experiment 1, expressed as the difference in mean proportion-of-baseline response rates from the first five sessions of Phase 4 and the last five sessions of Phase 3. Data for all pigeons are shown. Positive values represent an increase in target responding between these conditions.

Fig. 4

Frequency of problem behavior displayed by Jose over successive experimental sessions. See text for description of successive conditions.

Fig. 5

Frequency of problem behavior displayed by Norman over successive experimental sessions. See text for description of successive conditions.

Fig. 6

Frequency of problem behavior displayed by Jeremy over successive experimental sessions. See text for description of successive conditions.

Fig. 7

Frequency of problem behavior displayed by George over successive experimental sessions. See text for description of successive conditions.

Fig. 8

Persistence of manding during Phase 3 extinction expressed as proportions of overall rate of manding during the final five sessions of Phase 2 treatment. Treatment and extinction were replicated twice for Jeremy (see Fig. 6).

Fig. 9

Target (BT) and alternative (BA) response rates across phases (P1-P4) of Experiment 3. Data are averaged across pigeons and aggregated into five-session blocks (response rates only from the last five sessions of Phase 1 are shown). Figures for individual subjects are in Appendix A3.

Fig. 10

Resurgence of target responding in the DRA-High and DRA-Low components during Experiment 3, expressed as the difference in mean proportion-of-baseline response rates from the first five sessions of Phase 3 and the last five sessions of Phase 2. Data for all pigeons are shown. Positive values represent an increase in target responding between these conditions.

Fig. 11

Reinstatement of target responding in all components during Experiment 3, expressed as the difference in mean proportion-of-baseline response rates from the first five sessions of Phase 4 and the last five sessions of Phase 3. Data for all pigeons are shown. Positive values represent an increase in target responding between these conditions.

Fig. 12

Rates of alternative behavior during Phase 3, extinction, expressed as proportions of the final five sessions of Phase 2, treatment, in the DRA-Rich and DRA-Lean components.