The effects of response cost and response restriction on a multiple-response repertoire with humans.
Response cost and response restriction squash the target behavior and push up every other response, especially the weak ones.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers compared two punishment tools: response cost and response restriction. Adults without disabilities pressed buttons for points. Each tool blocked the target button for a few seconds.
The team used a multielement design. Sessions alternated between baseline, cost, and restriction. They counted every button press to see how each tool changed the full response set.
What they found
Both tools cut the target presses to near zero. The side effect was bigger: every other button rose. The weakest buttons at baseline jumped the most.
Cost and restriction worked the same. No tool beat the other. The main difference was in your data sheet, not in the learner's behavior.
How this fits with other research
Davison et al. (1968) showed response cost alone could tame loud talking in a lab. The new study adds response restriction and shows both tools work on many responses, not just words.
Pinkston et al. (2017) later found that high effort only looks like punishment if you miss tiny sub-threshold moves. They counted every micro-press and saw total behavior stay flat. Crosbie (1993) did not count sub-threshold moves, so the papers seem to clash. The fix is in the measurement rules, not the tools.
Lowe et al. (1995) saw the same slow-down in rats when lever presses got heavy. The pattern holds across species: make one response harder and the whole response set shifts.
Why it matters
If you must cut a problem behavior quickly, either tool works. Pick the one that is easier for your staff to carry out. Watch the side effects: the responses you rarely see now may bloom once the main one is blocked. Track every response class, not just the target, so you spot new problems before they grow.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Count every response class for one session before you start cost or restriction, then keep counting after to catch unexpected spikes.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In two experiments a multiple-response repertoire of four free-operant responses was developed with university students as subjects using monetary gain as reinforcement. Following baseline, one of the responses was reduced either by making monetary loss contingent upon it (response cost) or by removing it from the repertoire (response restriction). In Experiment 1 a multielement baseline design was employed in which baseline and restriction or response-cost contingencies alternated semirandomly every 3 minutes. In Experiment 2 a reversal design was employed (i.e., baseline, restriction or response cost, then baseline), and each response required a different amount of effort. Both experiments had the following results: (a) The target response decreased substantially; (b) most nontarget responses increased, and the rest remained near their baseline levels; and (c) no support was found for Dunham's hierarchical, most frequent follower, or greatest temporal similarity rules. For several subjects, the least probable responses during baseline increased most, and the most probable responses increased least. Furthermore, in Experiment 2, responses with the lowest frequency of reinforcement increased most (for all 7 subjects), and those with the greatest frequency of reinforcement increased least (for 5 subjects).
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1993 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1993.59-173