Effects of differential rates of alternative reinforcement on resurgence of human behavior
Rich alternative reinforcement stops problem behavior fast but rebounds hardest when you remove it.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Johnston et al. (2017) asked what happens when you give lots of rewards for a new behavior while stopping rewards for an old one.
They used a randomized design with neurotypical adults. One group got rich alternative reinforcement. Another got lean. A third got none.
They watched how fast the old behavior stopped and if it came back later.
What they found
Rich reinforcement knocked the old behavior down fastest. But when they removed it, the old behavior bounced back hardest.
Lean reinforcement worked slower but the bounce was smaller. No reinforcement gave the weakest control and little bounce.
How this fits with other research
Capio et al. (2013) saw the same trade-off earlier. Rich schedules crush behavior fast but rebound big. Lean schedules avoid the bounce yet work slower.
Craig et al. (2017) and Shahan et al. (2024) swapped rate for size or quality. Bigger or better reinforcers also suppress faster and rebound harder. The pattern holds across different ways to make reinforcement rich.
Irwin Helvey et al. (2023) looks like a contradiction. They found no difference in resurgence between dense and lean schedules after FCT. The key difference: they worked with children who had destructive behavior in a clinical FCT package. The lab study used neurotypical adults. Population and procedure matter.
Why it matters
You now know rich DRA gives quick wins but sets you up for a relapse. If you need fast suppression, use rich schedules, then thin very slowly. If you can accept slower change, start lean and skip the big bounce. Always plan maintenance before you pull the plug.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Plot your next thinning step: cut the rate by no more than 20% and watch for resurgence for three sessions.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Despite the success of exposure-based psychotherapies in anxiety treatment, relapse remains problematic. Resurgence, the return of previously eliminated behavior following the elimination of an alternative source of reinforcement, is a promising model of operant relapse. Nonhuman resurgence research has shown that higher rates of alternative reinforcement result in faster, more comprehensive suppression of target behavior, but also in greater resurgence when alternative reinforcement is eliminated. This study investigated rich and lean rates of alternative reinforcement on response suppression and resurgence in typically developing humans. In Phase 1, three groups (Rich, n = 18; Lean, n = 18; Control, n = 10) acquired the target response. In Phase 2, target responding was extinguished and alternative reinforcement delivered on RI 1 s, RI 3 s, and extinction schedules, respectively. Resurgence was assessed during Phase 3 under extinction conditions for all groups. Target responding was suppressed most thoroughly in Rich and partially in Lean. Target responding resurged in the Rich and Lean groups, but not in the Control group. Between groups, resurgence was more pronounced in the Rich group than the Lean and Control groups. Clinical implications of these findings, including care on the part of clinicians when identifying alternative sources of reinforcement, are discussed.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2017 · doi:10.1002/jeab.241