Method of stimulus combination impacts resistance to extinction.
Where you put the reinforcer cue during training changes how long behavior lasts when reinforcement stops.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team taught pigeons to peck keys for food.
They placed the food cue on the same key as the peck or on a second key.
After training they stopped all food and counted how many extra pecks happened.
They also tested what happened when food came faster or slower during training.
What they found
At first, same-key cues made the birds peck longer during extinction.
Later, both set-ups acted the same.
No matter where the cue sat, more food during training always meant more stubborn pecking when food stopped.
How this fits with other research
Bell et al. (2021) says persistence is about clear signals, not momentum.
Boudreau et al. (2015) still finds momentum matters, but the fight is mostly about words.
Both labs used birds and keys; Bell looked at context shifts while A looked at cue spots.
Craig et al. (2019) next showed that each new extinction round weakens momentum.
So the stubbornness you see today may drop tomorrow—plan re-checks.
Lecavalier et al. (2006) and Pinkston et al. (2018) back the core rule: richer food rates always win.
Place or force of the response changes little; reinforcer rate is the main lever.
Why it matters
You can’t move the client’s body parts like keys, but you can move stimuli.
Put the reinforcer cue near the response when you want quick durability.
Move it away or thin the schedule first when you plan later extinction.
And always re-test persistence—what was hard to break last month may crumble today.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Before you stop reinforcement, check if the SD is glued to the response spot—if it is, plan for extra extinction bursts.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Reinforcing an alternative response in the presence of the stimuli governing a target response increases resistance to extinction of target responding, relative to training target responding on its own. Conversely, training alternative and target responses in the presence of different stimuli and combining those stimuli only decreases resistance to extinction of target responding, relative to target responding on its own. The present study assessed how different methods of combining discriminative stimuli influence resistance to extinction of responding in pigeons. As in previous studies, combining stimuli across different keys only decreased resistance to extinction of target responding relative to target responding on its own. In comparison, combining stimuli on the same key initially increased resistance to extinction of target responding, but repeated tests resulted in similar levels of responding as target responding with stimuli combined on separate keys. Moreover, greater overall reinforcement rates produced greater resistance to extinction with both methods of combining stimuli, consistent with behavioral momentum theory. These findings reveal several behavioral processes influence the outcome of combining stimuli--including perceptual processes, discriminative control by contingencies, response competition, and behavioral momentum.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2015 · doi:10.1002/jeab.155