ABA Fundamentals

Mitigating resurgence of destructive behavior using the discriminative stimuli of a multiple schedule

Fisher et al. (2020) · Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 2020
★ The Verdict

Hold up a clear S-delta stimulus during extinction probes to block the comeback of problem behavior after FCT.

✓ Read this if BCBAs running FCT who need to test extinction or thin schedules without resurgence spikes.
✗ Skip if Practitioners already using lean VR plus long baseline phases who rarely probe extinction.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Fisher et al. (2020) tested a small tweak to FCT. They kept the teaching part the same: kids learned to press a switch to get the reinforcer that used to follow problem behavior.

Next came the new part. A multiple schedule ran in two parts. In one part, a green card was present and every FCR earned the reinforcer. In the other part, a red card was present and no reinforcer followed the FCR or any problem behavior.

After FCT was strong, the team ran an extinction probe. Both cards were shown, but no reinforcer was given. They counted how much problem behavior came back under each card.

02

What they found

Problem behavior stayed low when the red card was on screen. The card acted like an S-delta: it told the child, 'Reinforcement is not here.'

Resurgence only spiked under the green card, the former 'reinforcement available' cue. The SD that had signaled FCR reinforcement had no clear effect on relapse.

Adding a clear 'no-reinforcement' signal during the extinction challenge cut the return of destructive behavior.

03

How this fits with other research

Falligant et al. (2022) saw the same pattern: resurgence jumps when the reinforcer is suddenly yanked away. Both studies warn clinicians to expect a burst when big schedule cuts are made.

WFrazier et al. (2018) lowered resurgence by running FCT on a lean VR schedule first. Fisher et al. (2020) now show a second, faster option: just flash a red 'extinction' card during probes. You can either build momentum slowly or signal extinction clearly; each tool works.

Irwin Helvey et al. (2023) looked dense versus lean alternative reinforcement and found no difference in relapse. That seems to clash with WFrazier et al. (2018), but the key is what was changed. WW altered baseline rate before extinction; Irwin Helvey altered schedule density after FCT. Method difference explains the mixed results.

04

Why it matters

Resurgence is the main roadblock when you thin or pause FCT. This study gives you a cheap, five-second fix: place a distinct card, bracelet, or light on the table during extinction probes and tell the child, 'No rewards now.' One red card kept problem behavior near zero for every participant. Try it the next time you probe extinction or start schedule thinning.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Make a red 'No Reinforcer' card and show it whenever you run an extinction probe after FCT.

02At a glance

Intervention
functional communication training
Design
single case other
Finding
positive

03Original abstract

Results of several recent translational studies have suggested that correlating contextual or discriminative stimuli with the delivery and withholding of reinforcement for the functional communication response (FCR) may mitigate resurgence of destructive behavior, but few, if any, have isolated the effects of those stimuli. In the present study, we first trained the FCR, brought it under stimulus control of a multiple schedule, and thinned its reinforcement schedule in one stimulus context. Next, we conducted resurgence evaluations (i.e., baseline, functional communication training [FCT], extinction challenge) in two novel contexts to test the effects of the discriminative stimuli on resurgence. We programmed one context to include the (a) SD during the FCT phase to signal the availability of reinforcement for the FCR and (b) SΔ during a subsequent extinction challenge to signal the unavailability of reinforcement for the FCR. The other context did not include the SD during the FCT phase, nor the SΔ during the extinction challenge. We expected to see greater persistence of the FCR in the context that included the SD during FCT and less persistence of the FCR and destructive behavior in the context that included the SΔ during the extinction challenge. Obtained results confirmed this latter prediction but we observed no reliable difference when the SD was present or absent during the FCT phase. Our results have relevance for practitioners in that they provide further empirical support for the use of discriminative stimuli when treating destructive behavior.

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2020 · doi:10.1002/jeab.552