A quantitative analysis of the effects of target‐ and alternative‐reinforcement rate on resurgence

Montague and colleagues ran a lab test with neurotypical adults. They first paid people for pressing one button, then switched them to a new button that paid even more.

Next they stopped all payments and watched what happened. They tried different pay rates to see which combo made the old button-pressing come back.

The old response only bounced back when the second button had paid a lot. The bigger that earlier payoff, the stronger the comeback.

When both buttons had paid at high rates, the resurgence peaked. Low alternative pay kept the old behavior quiet.

Juanico et al. (2016) also showed that richer reward makes behavior return. They used favorite toys with preschoolers; Montague used coins with adults. Same rule: high reward now means more relapse later.

Hall (1992) found an upside-down link—high reward created preference but not more responses. Montague flips that: high reward later drives the responses, not the liking. The two studies sit together; one looks at choice, the other at comeback.

Azrin et al. (1969) mapped how different pay setups change fear and response speed. Montague extends that line by showing payoff size also controls resurgence after extinction.

Before you put problem behavior on extinction, check how much reinforcement the replacement skill gets. If the alternative is rich, the old behavior is ready to pop back. Thin the new payoff first, then fade the old one. Your extinction plan will hold longer.