Resurgence following differential reinforcement of alternative behavior implemented with and without extinction

Abstract

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.

Keywords: behavioral momentum theory; destructive behavior; differential reinforcement of alternative behavior; extinction; resurgence; resurgence as choice; reverse-translational.

Fig. 1.. Charlie’s resurgence-evaluation results across sequences of phases in which differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) was implemented either without extinction (DRA without EXT) or with extinction plus noncontingent reinforcement (DRA with EXT + NCR).

Note. The three panels depict rates of destructive behavior (top panel), rates of the alternative response (middle panel), and frequencies of noncontingent (NCR) or contingent (SR) reinforcer deliveries, depicted as stacked open and closed bars, respectively (bottom panel).

Fig. 2.. Dan’s resurgence-evaluation results across sequences of phases in which differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) was implemented either without extinction (DRA without EXT) or with extinction plus noncontingent reinforcement (DRA with EXT + NCR).

Note. The three panels depict rates of destructive behavior (top panel), rates of the alternative response (middle panel), and frequencies of noncontingent (NCR) or contingent (SR) reinforcer deliveries, depicted as stacked open and closed bars, respectively (bottom panel).

Fig. 3.. Rates of target (top panels) and alternative responses (bottom panels) across phases in which differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) was implemented either with extinction plus noncontingent reinforcement (DRA with EXT + NCR) or without extinction (DRA without EXT).

Note. Aggregated responding for each group is depicted in the right column.

Fig. 4.. Rates of noncontingent and contingent reinforcer deliveries for target responses (top panels) and alternative responses (bottom panels) across phases in which differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) was implemented either with extinction plus noncontingent reinforcement (DRA with EXT + NCR) or without extinction (DRA without EXT).

Note. Aggregated rates of reinforcer deliveries for each group are depicted in the right column.

Fig. 5.. Proportion of baseline target responding during the last two sessions of Phase 2 and the first five sessions of Phase 3 for Experiment 1 (left panels) and Experiment 2 (right panels) across differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) implemented with extinction plus noncontingent reinforcement (NCR; top panels) and without extinction (middle panels).

Note. Bottom panels show aggregated target responding.