Reponse-reinforcer independence and conventional extinction after fixed-interval and variable-interval schedules.

Three lab rats pressed a bar for food on two schedules. Some got food every fixed time. Others got food at random times.

Next the experimenter tried two ways to stop the bar pressing. One way still gave food, but not for pressing. The other way gave no food at all.

When food arrived no matter what, the rats slowed down but still pressed. When food stopped completely, pressing almost vanished.

Plain extinction worked faster than keeping free food coming.

Trask et al. (2018) later showed that giving free reinforcers during later tests can cut resurgence. Their idea builds on the 1972 finding: free food keeps a little behavior alive, yet that same trick later prevents relapse.

Shearn et al. (1997) tested kids with autism and monkey. They saw the same pattern. Non-contingent sensory toys reduced stereotypy, but adding brief response blocking worked even better. Again, free stuff helps, yet full extinction helps more.

Shahan et al. (2026) flipped the question. They asked, "Can we use shorter extinction and still block resurgence?" They found yes—if you teach the animal that reinforcers are now off-limits. Their work updates the 1972 lesson: smart contingency training can give the same fast suppression with less session time.

When you fade problem behavior, do not rely on free reinforcers alone. Pair them with true extinction or response blocking for quicker suppression. If resurgence is a risk, schedule brief off periods or teach the client that reinforcers are no longer tied to responses. You get faster gains and fewer relapses.