Behavioral momentum theory fails to account for the effects of reinforcement rate on resurgence
High-rate reinforcement invites resurgence, the opposite of what momentum theory claims.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Craig et al. (2016) tested whether behavioral momentum theory predicts resurgence. They arranged an alternative reinforcement schedule that delivered food at different rates. After steady responding, they removed the food to see if the old response would return.
The study used a single-case lab design. The goal was to see if higher reinforcement rates make behavior more persistent during extinction.
What they found
The results broke the momentum rule. High-rate alternative reinforcement was needed for resurgence to happen. More reinforcement did not create more persistence.
Behavioral momentum theory says the opposite. It claims richer schedules should protect behavior from relapse. The data said no.
How this fits with other research
Thrailkill et al. (2018) ran a similar test with pigeons and a child. They also found that richer training later caused more relapse. Together, the two studies weaken the momentum story.
Bai et al. (2016) looks like a clash. That paper showed alternative reinforcement made target behavior tougher to extinguish. The difference is in the measure: Bai watched persistence during extinction, Craig watched resurgence after extinction. Same procedure, different window.
King et al. (2025) swept up Craig’s experiment in a review of seven lab studies. The review agrees that reinforcer properties matter and momentum theory needs repair.
Why it matters
If you use dense reinforcement to build a new skill, plan for a possible surge of the old problem later. Thin the schedule early or add booster extinction sessions. Do not assume high reinforcement history will shield the response. Check for resurgence two to three weeks after you close treatment.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Track the old problem behavior for two weeks after you stop reinforcing the replacement skill.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The behavioral-momentum model of resurgence predicts reinforcer rates within a resurgence preparation should have three effects on target behavior. First, higher reinforcer rates in baseline (Phase 1) produce more persistent target behavior during extinction plus alternative reinforcement. Second, higher rate alternative reinforcement during Phase 2 generates greater disruption of target responding during extinction. Finally, higher rates of either reinforcement source should produce greater responding when alternative reinforcement is suspended in Phase 3. Recent empirical reports have produced mixed results in terms of these predictions. Thus, the present experiment further examined reinforcer-rate effects on persistence and resurgence. Rats pressed target levers for high-rate or low-rate variable-interval food during Phase 1. In Phase 2, target-lever pressing was extinguished, an alternative nose-poke became available, and nose-poking produced either high-rate variable-interval, low-rate variable-interval, or no (an extinction control) alternative reinforcement. Alternative reinforcement was suspended in Phase 3. For groups that received no alternative reinforcement, target-lever pressing was less persistent following high-rate than low-rate Phase-1 reinforcement. Target behavior was more persistent with low-rate alternative reinforcement than with high-rate alternative reinforcement or extinction alone. Finally, no differences in Phase-3 responding were observed for groups that received either high-rate or low-rate alternative reinforcement, and resurgence occurred only following high-rate alternative reinforcement. These findings are inconsistent with the momentum-based model of resurgence. We conclude this model mischaracterizes the effects of rein-forcer rates on persistence and resurgence of operant behavior.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2016 · doi:10.1002/jeab.207