ABA Fundamentals

Re‐exposure to reinforcement in Context A during treatment in Context B reduces ABC renewal

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

Brief hops back to the original reward room during extinction cut ABC renewal in a new setting.

✓ Read this if BCBAs who run extinction programs and worry about relapse in novel places.
✗ Skip if Clinicians who treat in one permanent context and never move the client.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Rodriguez-Seijas et al. (2020) asked a simple question. Can quick visits back to the old reward room while you are doing extinction in a new room stop the behavior from roaring back in a third, never-seen place?

They ran a single-case lab study. Participants earned rewards in Context A. Then the team moved to Context B and stopped the rewards. While still in Context B they let the person pop back into Context A for short reward bursts. Later everyone went to brand-new Context C to see if the old behavior returned.

02

What they found

The group that got those quick reward bursts in Context A showed far less ABC renewal in Context C. Plain talk: the behavior did not bounce back as hard when they later hit a new place.

Extinction-only in Context B left the door open for big renewal. Mixing in brief re-exposure to reinforcement slammed that door shut.

03

How this fits with other research

Liddon et al. (2018) first mapped the ABC renewal hill. They showed the relapse peak is real and can hit the same person twice. Rodriguez-Seijas et al. (2020) now give us a shovel to level that hill.

Craig et al. (2019) looked almost identical on paper: rats shuttled between reward and no-reward rooms daily. That earlier study found more renewal, not less. The twist is timing. The 2019 rats ended on reinforcement days, so the behavior stayed strong. The 2020 humans ended most sessions in extinction, so the behavior weakened. Same shuttle, different last stop, opposite outcome.

King et al. (2025) push the idea into kids with autism and ID. They used noncontingent rewards to cut resurgence. Craig’s lab trick of revisiting the reward context may merge nicely with that clinical tactic.

04

Why it matters

You now have an easy lever: let the client taste the old reward setting for a minute or two while you press on with extinction elsewhere. This brief visit can vaccinate against relapse when the client later faces brand-new places like a new classroom, aunt’s house, or community job site. Build it into your relapse-prevention plan and track renewal probes in each fresh context.

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

Schedule two-minute reward bursts in the old setting while you keep extinction running in the new one.

02At a glance

Intervention
extinction
Design
single case other
Population
not specified
Finding
positive

03Original abstract

Previous work from our laboratory showed that intermittently re-exposing rats to reinforcement for lever pressing in a training (A) context, while eliminating lever pressing in a second (B) context, increased ABA renewal of lever pressing relative to rats that experienced only Context B during response elimination. In the current study, we replicated these procedures while assessing renewal in the presence of a novel context (i.e., ABC renewal). Unlike the findings described above, renewal was reduced in the group that experienced re-exposure to Context A during lever-press elimination relative to rats that experienced only Context B. These findings suggest that alternating between contexts associated with reinforcement and extinction during treatment reduces the probability that organisms will respond in novel contexts. These outcomes may be the result of discrimination and/or generalization processes. Moreover, this training procedure may offer a potential mitigation strategy for ABC renewal.

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2020 · doi:10.1002/jeab.569