Stimulus–reinforcer relations established during training determine resistance to extinction and relapse via reinstatement
Reinforcing an alternative response can accidentally armor the very behavior you want to eliminate.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Bai et al. (2016) taught two response options at the same time. One key gave food. The other key also gave food. Later both keys stopped paying off. The team watched how long the birds kept pecking during extinction and after a single free food delivery.
The goal was to see if training with an always-reinforced alternative makes the target response tougher to eliminate.
What they found
Birds that learned both responses together pecked less at first. When extinction hit, they pecked longer and relapsed harder after the free food.
Extra reinforcement for the second key did not protect the first key. It made the first key more stubborn.
How this fits with other research
Thrailkill et al. (2018) saw the same pattern. More food during training meant more relapse later. Their data add a math rule: the richer the history, the bigger the bounce.
Laugeson et al. (2014) looked at resurgence and warned that removing the alternative cue alone will not stop relapse. Bai’s birds show why: the reinforcer history, not the cue, drives the return.
Reid et al. (2003) found a similar twist with children. Giving free toys on a timer made stereotypy harder to disrupt. All three studies say the same plain thing: extra reinforcement can back-fire by building behavioral momentum.
Why it matters
If you run DRA or DRO plus extinction, watch for hidden persistence. The alternative you reinforce can glue the problem behavior to the routine. Track post-extinction bursts and renewal probes. Thin both schedules together and plan booster extinction sessions so the past does not bite you next month.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After you pick an alternative response, probe extinction bursts twice: once after baseline and again after one week of DRA to catch hidden persistence early.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The baseline rate of a reinforced target response decreases with the availability of response-independent sources of alternative reinforcement; however, resistance to disruption and relapse increases. Because many behavioral treatments for problem behavior include response-dependent reinforcement of alternative behavior, the present study assessed whether response-dependent alternative reinforcement also decreases baseline response rates but increases resistance to extinction and relapse. We reinforced target responding at equal rates across two components of a multiple schedule with pigeons. We compared resistance to extinction and relapse via reinstatement of (1) a target response trained concurrently with a reinforced alternative response in one component with (2) a target response trained either concurrently or in separate components from the alternative response across conditions. Target response rates trained alone in baseline were higher but resistance to extinction and relapse via reinstatement tests were greater after training concurrently with the alternative response. In another assessment, training target and alternative responding together, but separating them during extinction and reinstatement tests, produced equal resistance to extinction and relapse. Together, these findings are consistent with behavioral momentum theory-operant response-reinforcer relations determined baseline response rates but Pavlovian stimulus-reinforcer relations established during training determined resistance to extinction and relapse. These findings imply that reinforcing alternative behavior to treat problem behavior could initially reduce rates but increase persistence.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2016 · doi:10.1002/jeab.227