A pharmacological examination of the resistance-to-change hypothesis of response strength.
Drugs can slow responding, but they do not follow the normal "stronger behavior resists change" rule.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Cohen (1986) gave lab rats four different drugs. The drugs were speed, a barbiturate, an antipsychotic, and a gut peptide.
Each rat pressed a lever for food pellets. The team watched how the drugs changed the pressing. They wanted to see if the drugs acted like extinction or like giving free food.
What they found
The drugs did not follow the "stronger behavior resists change" rule. Some drugs slowed pressing, others had no effect, and the pattern did not match normal disruptors.
In short, drug effects and extinction effects are not the same thing.
How this fits with other research
Cullinan et al. (2001) later showed that free milk deliveries do make lever pressing last longer in extinction. Their result fits the old rule, so drugs behave differently than food-based disruptors.
Nevin et al. (2005) used dopamine agonists and also saw messy, drug-specific rate changes. Together the two rat studies say: dopamine drugs break the usual resistance rules.
Spriggs et al. (2016) looked at the kids on psychotropic meds. Meds usually cut problem behavior, but sometimes the function changed. Their clinic data and L’s lab data both warn: drug effects are not simple extinction.
Why it matters
If a client starts a new medication, do not assume behavior will drop like it does in extinction. Re-run your functional analysis. Watch for new topographies or functions. Treat drug changes as unknown disruptors, not as fancy extinction.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After any med change, rerun a brief functional analysis before you thin reinforcement.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The effects of d-amphetamine sulfate, sodium pentobarbital, haloperidol, and cholecystokinin-octapeptide were examined within the context of Nevin's (1974, 1979) resistance-to-change hypothesis of response strength. In three experiments, rats' responding was reinforced by delivery of food under chained random-interval 30-s random-interval 30-s, multiple fixed-interval 30-s fixed-interval 120-s, or multiple random-interval 30-s random-interval 120-s schedules. Each rat received several doses of each drug and changes in response rate were measured. The resistance-to-change hypothesis predicts greater disruption of response rate relative to baseline in the initial component of the chained schedule and in the 120-s component of the multiple schedules. In the chained schedule cholecystokinin-octapeptide produced greater reductions in response rate relative to baseline in the initial component. However, no differences between components were observed with haloperidol or sodium pentobarbital, and high doses of d-amphetamine reduced response rate in the terminal component relatively more than in the initial component. In the multiple schedules either no differences were observed between components or response rate was reduced more relative to baseline in the 30-s component. The data fail to support the notion that drugs may be viewed within the same context as other response disruptors such as extinction, satiation, and the presentation of alternative reinforcement.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1986 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1986.46-363