Signaling added response-independent reinforcement to assess Pavlovian processes in resistance to change and relapse.
A brief light before free food did not help pigeons' key-pecking survive extinction, so Pavlovian cues alone may not build resistance to change.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team worked with pigeons in a lab. Birds pecked a key for food on a regular schedule.
Before some free pieces of grain, a short light came on. The light never told the bird when to peck; it only said "free food soon."
Then the researchers stopped all food. They watched if the signaled free food had made the key-pecking stronger against extinction.
What they found
The light did not protect the behavior. Key-pecking died out at the same speed whether free food had been signaled or not.
Across birds and tests, the signal gave no extra staying power. A pure Pavlovian cue did not create behavioral momentum.
How this fits with other research
Blough (1971) first showed that a signal for free grain can briefly boost key-pecking. Laugeson et al. (2014) now shows the same kind of cue does not guard that pecking against extinction.
Cullinan et al. (2001) got the opposite result with rats: signaled free milk made lever-pressing harder to stop. Species, reinforcer type, or both may explain the clash.
Bland et al. (2016) moved the idea into applied work. They found that signaling alternative reinforcement during DRA makes problem behavior more persistent. Their "signal helps" outcome seems to contradict the null pigeon data, but the procedures differ: DRA gives the signal during ongoing differential reinforcement, not during simple free-food pairings.
Why it matters
If you use extra reinforcers or signals in treatment, do not assume they will always shield behavior from extinction. The pigeon lab says a pure Pavlovian cue is not enough; the rat lab and DRA studies say context matters. Test your own case. When you add free reinforcement or signals, probe extinction later to see if persistence rises or stays flat.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run a brief extinction probe after you use any new signaled bonus reinforcer to check if behavior lasts longer or fades the same.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Behavioral momentum theory asserts Pavlovian stimulus-reinforcer relations govern the persistence of operant behavior. Specifically, resistance to conditions of disruption (e.g., extinction, satiation) reflects the relation between discriminative stimuli and the prevailing reinforcement conditions. The present study assessed whether Pavlovian stimulus-reinforcer relations govern resistance to disruption in pigeons by arranging both response-dependent and -independent food reinforcers in two components of a multiple schedule. In one component, discrete-stimulus changes preceded response-independent reinforcers, paralleling methods that reduce Pavlovian conditioned responding to contextual stimuli. Compared to the control component with no added stimuli preceding response-independent reinforcement, response rates increased as discrete-stimulus duration increased (0, 5, 10, and 15 s) across conditions. Although resistance to extinction decreased as stimulus duration increased in the component with the added discrete stimulus, further tests revealed no effect of discrete stimuli, including other disrupters (presession food, intercomponent food, modified extinction) and reinstatement designed to control for generalization decrement. These findings call into question a straightforward conception that the stimulus-reinforcer relations governing resistance to disruption reflect the same processes as Pavlovian conditioning, as asserted by behavioral momentum theory.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2014 · doi:10.1002/jeab.96