The role of response force on the persistence and structure of behavior during extinction
Reinforcement rate, not how hard the response is, decides how long behavior sticks around during extinction.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Pinkston and team worked with pigeons in a lab.
They trained the birds to peck two keys for food.
One key needed a hard peck. The other needed a soft peck.
Both keys paid off on the same schedule.
Then they stopped all food and watched how long each bird kept pecking.
What they found
The force of the peck made no difference.
Birds with hard-peck history quit at the same speed as birds with soft-peck history.
Only the past rate of food mattered.
Rich schedules kept birds pecking longer. Lean schedules let them quit sooner.
How this fits with other research
McIntyre et al. (2002) already showed that rich schedules create stronger resistance to extinction. Pinkston’s work repeats that finding and adds that response force does not change the rule.
Moss et al. (2009) looked at mice and found that high force can change how often they respond. This seems to clash with Pinkston’s “no effect” result. The gap is likely about species and the phase studied: J et al. watched responding while food was still coming; Pinkston watched what happened after food stopped.
Craig et al. (2019) extended the story by showing that each new extinction session weakens resistance. Pinkston only ran one extinction test, so Craig’s work tells you not to assume the same level of persistence next time.
Why it matters
When you plan extinction for a client, focus on the reinforcement history, not the form of the response. A hard hit and a soft tap will fade at the same speed if they were reinforced on the same schedule. Check past payoff rates to predict how long extinction might take, and be ready to reassess if you run another extinction probe later.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Before starting extinction, graph the last two weeks of reinforcement rate for the target behavior and use that data to set realistic fade-out expectations.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Behavior Momentum Theory has emerged as a prominent account of resistance to change in both basic and applied research. Although laboratory studies often define precise, repeatable responses, application research often deals with response classes that may vary widely along a number of dimensions. In general, Behavior Momentum Theory has not addressed how response dimensions impact resistance to change, providing an opportunity to expand the model in new directions. Four rats pressed a force transducer under a multiple variable interval (VI) 60-s VI 60-s schedule of reinforcement. In one component, responses satisfied the schedule only if the response force fell within a "low" force band requirement; responses in the other schedule were required to satisfy a "high" force band. Once responding stabilized, extinction was programmed for three sessions. Then, the procedures were replicated. The results showed that response force came under discriminative control, but force requirements had no impact on resistance to extinction. In a follow-up condition, the schedule was changed to a multiple VI 30-s VI 120-s schedule and the low-force band operated in both components. The results showed that behavior maintained by the VI 30-s schedule was generally more resistant to extinction. A secondary analysis showed that force distributions created under baseline maintained during extinction. Overall, the results suggest that differential response force requirements prevailing in steady state do not affect the course of extinction.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2018 · doi:10.1002/jeab.306