Resurgence: Response competition, stimulus ... - Wiley Online Library

2014, 102, 231–240

JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR

NUMBER

2 (SEPTEMBER)

RESURGENCE: RESPONSE COMPETITION, STIMULUS CONTROL, AND REINFORCER CONTROL CHRISTOPHER A. PODLESNIK1,2

AND

MICHAEL E. KELLEY1

1

THE SCOTT CENTER FOR AUTISM TREATMENT AND FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND

Resurgence is the relapse of a previously reinforced and then extinguished target response when extinguishing a more recently reinforced alternative response. We designed the present study to assess the contribution of stimulus-control and reinforcer-control processes in determining resurgence. In a modified resurgence procedure, we removed the alternative discriminative stimulus signaling alternative reinforcement when extinguishing the alternative response. This produced more abrupt resurgence of target responding than in a typical resurgence procedure maintaining the alternative discriminative stimulus when extinguishing the alternative response. The overall amount of resurgence did not differ. Importantly, a “renewal” control added and removed the alternative stimulus during extinction, identically as in the modified resurgence procedure. However, alternative responding was never reinforced, which produced no relapse of target responding. Therefore, the more abrupt resurgence with the modified procedure than with the typical procedure suggests removing the alternative stimulus reduced the competition between alternative and target responding. These findings revealed the importance of adding and removing alternative reinforcement in producing resurgence (reinforcer control) but little influence of simply adding and removing the alternative stimulus (stimulus control). These data suggest that clinicians should consider the long-term availability of the alternative response option when developing differential-reinforcement interventions. Key words: resurgence, context renewal, relapse, behavioral momentum theory, pigeon, key peck

Understanding the learning processes underlying relapse of extinguished operant behavior can provide avenues for improving behavioral treatments for eliminating problem behaviors, including drug abuse and noncompliance in individuals with developmental disabilities (see Merchant, Li, & Shaham, 2013; Nevin & Wacker, 2013, for reviews). Resurgence is a relapse phenomenon in which an extinguished target response recovers as a result of extinguishing a more recently reinforced alternative response. For a typical laboratory example, Leitenberg, Rawson, and Bath (1970) trained target lever pressing in rats with a variable-interval (VI) 30-s schedule of food reinforcement in Phase 1. In Phase 2, they extinguished target responding while simultaneously introducing and reinforcThe authors thank the members of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour Research Group for their help in running these experiments, Federico Sanabria for invaluable discussions and suggestions regarding quantitative modeling, and Mike Owens for animal care. The experiment was carried out under approval AEC/2011/RT909 granted by the Animal Ethics Committee of The University of Auckland. Corresponding author: Christopher A. Podlesnik, The Scott Center for Autism Treatment and Florida Institute of Technology, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. Email: [email protected] doi: 10.1002/jeab.102

ing presses on an alternative lever according to a fixed-ratio (FR) 10 schedule. Finally, in Phase 3, extinguishing alternative responding increased target responding, despite extinction remaining in effect for target responding. Resurgence could underlie lapses in problem behavior when reinforcement for desirable alternatives ceases or treatment integrity becomes compromised (see Podlesnik, Jimenez-Gomez, & Shahan, 2006; Volkert, Lerman, Call, & TroclairLasserre, 2009, for discussions). In studies of resurgence, the discriminative stimulus signaling reinforcement for alternative responding typically remains in effect during Phase 3. In Leitenberg et al. (1970), for example, the alternative lever itself remained in the chamber during Phase 3. Therefore, resurgence provides a model of relapse in which the discriminative stimulus for alternative reinforcement is retained when eliminating alternative reinforcement. Maintaining the discriminative stimulus is important to establish that the resurgence effect results solely from eliminating alternative reinforcement. However, the typical laboratory resurgence model might not correspond with many instances of resurgence that occur outside the lab. Some instances of resurgence might be due to elimination of both alternative reinforcement

231

232

CHRISTOPHER A. PODLESNIK and MICHAEL E. KELLEY

and the accompanying discriminative stimulus. For example, problem behavior might return if the adult who taught a communication response to a child with a developmental disability were absent; or the child lost the device used to communicate desirable behavior, as when implementing functional communication training (FCT; Carr & Durand, 1985) or a picture exchange communication system (PECS; Bondy & Frost, 1994). Relative to typical laboratory resurgence procedures, removing both the reinforcer and discriminative stimulus during resurgence tests could increase the amount and/or latency of resurgence due to greater discrimination of the contingency change (but see Wacker et al., 2013). Several behavioral processes have been suggested to contribute to relapse of target responding during typically arranged resurgence procedures. One process suggested by Bouton, Winterbauer, and Todd (2012) is that resurgence results from contextual stimulus control, in which the presence of contextual stimuli differentially associated with reinforcement or extinction determine whether extinguished behavior returns. In studies of context renewal using animal models, simply changing features of the contextual stimuli in the operant chamber (e.g., odor, flooring, wall patterns) after extinguishing a target response produces a relapse, or renewal, of target responding. For example, Todd, Winterbauer, & Bouton (2012) reinforced rats’ lever pressing in the presence of one set of global contextual stimuli (Context A), extinguished lever pressing in a novel context (Context B), and then returned rats to either the training Context A or a novel Context C while maintaining extinction of target responding. Both reintroducing Context A and novel Context C produced reliable renewal of lever pressing. Moreover, groups presented with a particularly distinct Context B produced even greater renewal when tested in Context A or Context C. The implication for behavioral treatment is that treating problem behavior in a very different stimulus context (e.g., treatment clinic) will be, on its own, sufficient to produce relapse upon returning to the original stimulus context (e.g., home, school). In line with the interpretation that relapse generally is a product of stimulus control, Winterbauer and Bouton (2010) suggested resurgence might be analogous to ABC context renewal and, therefore, is another example of

stimulus control over relapse. Specifically, the three phases of typical resurgence procedures constitute different stimulus contexts controlling target responding. Manipulations influencing resurgence effects would be suggested to be analogous to the changes in contextual stimuli across phases in Todd et al. (2012) discussed above. For example, greater rates of alternative reinforcement enhance resurgence (e.g., Leitenberg, Rawson, & Mulick,1975; Sweeney & Shahan, 2013; but see Winterbauer & Bouton, 2010) by increasing the change in stimulus context between Phases 2 and 3 (i.e., Contexts B vs. A or C). Therefore, this conceptual framework primarily attributes the resurgence observed by adding and removing alternative reinforcement to being governed by changes in stimulus control. Behavioral momentum theory, conversely, primarily attributes relapse in typical studies of resurgence to changes in control by alternative reinforcement itself. Behavioral momentum theory provides a general quantitative account of how reinforcement contingencies influence the persistence and relapse of operant behavior (see Nevin & Shahan, 2011; Nevin & Wacker, 2013; Podlesnik & Shahan, 2010, for reviews). Shahan and Sweeney (2011) proposed a quantitative model of resurgence based on the augmented model of extinction (see Nevin & Grace, 2000) suggesting alternative reinforcement in Phase 2 (1) disrupts target responding, and (2) contributes reinforcing strength to the target response: −tðkR a þcþdr Þ Bt ¼ 10 ðr þR a Þb ; B0

ð1Þ

where Bt is response rate at time t in extinction and B0 is training response rate (e.g., Phase 1). Terms in the numerator of the exponent contribute to the disruption of target responding relative to training response rates and the terms in the denominator contribute to countering those disruptive effects. During extinction of target responding, c is the effect of removing the contingency between responding and reinforcement, d scales generalization decrement from eliminating the training reinforcement rate r as stimuli, and k scales the disruptive effect of alternative reinforcement Ra. Finally, b scales the response-strengthening effects of r and Ra on resistance to extinction and resurgence. Therefore, time in extinction

RESPONSE COMPETITION, STIMULUS CONTROL, AND REINFORCER CONTROL increases the disruptive impact of terms in the numerator but is countered by all sources of reinforcement in the denominator. Equation 1 accounts for resurgence of target responding by setting Ra to the alternative reinforcement rate in Phase 2 and setting Ra in the numerator to zero when removing alternative reinforcement in Phase 3. Equation 1 has been used to account for resurgence in a range of laboratory experiments (see Shahan & Sweeney, 2011, for a review) and in an applied study of children with developmental disabilities (Wacker et al., 2011). Equation 1 asserts that behavioral momentum theory accounts for resurgence by the specific reinforcement parameters arranged across the three phases of a resurgence procedure. Therefore, greater rates of alternative reinforcement enhance resurgence (e.g., Leitenberg et al., 1975; Sweeney & Shahan, 2013; but see Winterbauer & Bouton, 2010) directly by adding and removing the disruptive effects but maintaining the strengthening effects of alternative reinforcement between Phases 2 and 3. Therefore, this quantitative framework primarily attributes the resurgence observed by adding and removing alternative reinforcement to being governed by changes in reinforcer control. The contribution of both stimulus control (e.g., Bouton et al., 2012) and reinforcer control (e.g., Shahan & Sweeney, 2011) on resurgence likely is necessary to understand its determinants. However, there has been no experimentation attempting to reveal how stimulus- and reinforcer-control processes contribute to resurgence. Therefore, the present study compared

233

three methods for assessing relapse of operant behavior in pigeons (see Fig. 1). Among the three methods, we arranged identical reinforcement contingencies for target responding in Phase 1—a variable-interval (VI) 60-s schedule. Target responding was extinguished in Phases 2 and 3 but the reinforcement and/or stimulus conditions differed for the alternative response across the three methods. In the Typical resurgence procedure, we introduced the alternative discriminative stimulus in Phase 2 and reinforced pecking the lit alternative-response key. In Phase 3 we removed reinforcement while leaving the discriminative stimuli unchanged. In the Modified resurgence procedure, we introduced the alternative discriminative stimulus and reinforced pecking that key in Phase 2, and removed both the discriminative stimulus and reinforcement in Phase 3. In the Renewal procedure, we introduced the alternative stimulus in Phase 2 without reinforcement, and removed the stimulus in Phase 3. A comparison of these methods has obvious applied implications as well. For both the Typical and Modified resurgence procedures (Fig. 1, left and center columns), Phases 1 and 2 are identical. That is, a target response (e.g., aggression that is maintained by attention) is reinforced in baseline, and is followed by differential reinforcement of an alternative response (e.g., a card exchange that produces attention). The important difference for Phase 3 is whether the card is available to be exchanged. For the renewal procedure (right column), the change in stimulus context across

Fig. 1. Diagram of discriminative stimuli, reinforcement (VI 60 s), and extinction (EXT) of target and alternative responses during Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 of the Typical, Modified, and Renewal procedures. Target keys were lit green and alternative keys were lit red.

234


phases might reflect treatment occurring in a novel context (e.g., a clinical setting) in Phase 2 from the original context in which problem behavior occurred (e.g., home or school). Relapse of problem behavior might be expected to differ among these different reinforcement and stimulus conditions. Enhanced resurgence in the Modified resurgence procedure compared to the Typical procedure might suggest a role for stimulus control in resurgence, as these procedures arranged identical reinforcement conditions. Enhanced resurgence in the Modified resurgence procedure compared to the Renewal procedure would suggest reinforcement conditions influence resurgence, as these procedures arranged identical stimulus conditions. However, differences in the pattern of relapse among the three procedures would suggest yet other processes determining resurgence. In addition, the present study provided the occasion to assess the adequacy of Equation 1 based on behavioral momentum theory (Shahan & Sweeney, 2011) in accounting for the behavioral processes underlying resurgence. Finally, the findings from the present study provide insight into how differences in stimulus and reinforcement control could influence treatment maintenance when discontinuing behavioral treatments to eliminate problem behavior (e.g., DRA treatment). Method Subjects and Apparatus Ten experienced homing pigeons, numbered 111 to 120, were individually housed and maintained at 85% 15 g of their freefeeding body weights with postsession supplementary feeding of mixed grain, as necessary. Water and grit were available at all times. The pigeons’ home cages also served as the experimental chambers (see Podlesnik, Bai, & Elliffe, 2012, for a detailed description). Two keys, 85 mm apart center to center, could be transilluminated red or green, and pecks exceeding 0.1 N closed a microswitch. During hopper presentations, all key-lights were turned off and the hopper was raised and illuminated for 2 s. All experimental events were arranged and recorded by an IBM1 PC-compatible computer running MED-PC IV1 software. The colony room lighting was switched on at 00:00 and off at 16:00 daily. Sessions began at

1:00 AM daily. No personnel entered the room while sessions were conducted. Procedure All sessions lasted 35 min, excluding reinforcement time. Reinforcement for target and alternative responding was arranged according to VI 60-s schedules sampled without replacement from 13 intervals (Fleshler & Hoffman, 1962). Figure 1 shows a diagram of the procedures used in the present study. The right (red) and left (green) keys will be referred to as target and alternative responses, respectively. Pigeons 111 to 115 experienced the Typical and Modified resurgence procedures successively. Pigeons 111, 112, and 113 received the Typical resurgence procedure first and Pigeons 114 and 115 received the Modified resurgence procedure first. Pigeons 116 to 120 completed only the Renewal procedure. These pigeons worked in the same operant chambers but after the other pigeons had completed the Typical and Modified resurgence procedures. Phase 1 was identical in all three procedures, with the alternative key being dark and inactive, and pecking the target key produced reinforcement according to the VI 60-s schedule for ten sessions. During the Typical resurgence procedure, Phase 2 arranged for the alternative key to be illuminated and pecking it produced reinforcement for five sessions—pecking the target key was extinguished. Phase 3 arranged for both keys to remain illuminated and removal of alternative reinforcement. During the Modified resurgence procedure, Phase 2 also arranged for the alternative key to be illuminated and pecking it produced reinforcement for five sessions— pecking the target key was extinguished. Phase 3 arranged for the target key to remain illuminated, darkening the alternative key, and removal of alternative reinforcement. During the Renewal procedure, Phase 2 arranged for the alternative key to be illuminated with no reinforcement presented for five sessions—pecking the target key was extinguished. Phase 3 arranged for the target key to remain illuminated and darkening of the alternative key. Results General findings Reinforcement rates for target responding from the last six sessions of Phase 1 approximated

RESPONSE COMPETITION, STIMULUS CONTROL, AND REINFORCER CONTROL scheduled values during the Typical (M ¼ 0.99, SD ¼ 0.016), Modified (M ¼ 0.99, SD ¼ 0.004), and Renewal procedures (M ¼ 0.96, SD ¼ 0.017). Reinforcement rates for alternative responding from the all sessions of Phase 2 approximated scheduled values during the Typical (M ¼ 1.00, SD ¼ 0.016) and Modified resurgence procedures (M ¼ 0.97, SD ¼ 0.019).

235

Figure 2 shows target and alternative response rates across the three phases of the Typical (left column), Modified (center column), and Renewal procedures (right column). Target responding was acquired normally during Phase 1 in all pigeons and alternative responding was negligible. With all three procedures, target response rates decreased rapidly to low levels during Phase 2. Target response rates were

Fig. 2. Target and alternative (Alt) response rates during Phase 1 (P1), Phase 2 (EXT þ Alt), and Phase 3 during the Typical, Modified, and Renewal procedures. Error bars indicate range.

236


greater during the first session of Phase 2 with the Renewal procedure than with the Typical and Modified resurgence procedures, presumably due to the absence of alternative reinforcement with the Renewal procedure. Alternative response rates with the Typical and Modified resurgence procedures were near asymptotic levels in the first session of Phase 2. Alternative response rates during the Renewal procedure were low but increased modestly in all six pigeons from the last session of Phase 1 (M ¼ 0.05, Range ¼ 0.00–0.23) to the first session of Phase 2 (M ¼ 1.046, Range ¼ 0.43–2.23). The increase ranged from 0.2 to 2.23 responses per min across pigeons. Therefore, the alternative discriminative stimulus was detected by all pigeons. In Phase 3, target response rates reliably increased during the Typical and Modified procedures but not with the Renewal procedure, although a small increase can be observed during the first session for Pigeon 119. With the Typical resurgence procedure, eliminating alternative reinforcement monotonically decreased alternative response rates; target response rates bitonically increased and decreased. With the Modified resurgence procedure, eliminating alternative reinforcement and the discriminative stimulus immediately eliminated alternative responding; target response rates increased maximally during the first session and decreased monotonically thereafter. Alternative responding during the Modified resurgence and Renewal procedure was negligible. We assessed whether the pattern of target responding during Phase 3 differed statistically between procedures. Given the relative absence of target responding in Phase 3 with the Renewal procedure, we assessed target responding only between the Typical and Modified resurgence

procedures using a two-way (procedure x session) repeated-measures ANOVA. We found statistically significant differences in the procedure x session interaction, F(4, 16) ¼ 4.496, p ¼ 0.013, and a main effect of session, F(4, 16) ¼ 7.927, p ¼ 0.001, but not procedure, F(1, 4) ¼ 0.5630, p ¼ 0.495. A Sidak post-hoc test revealed a statistically significant difference in target response rates only during the first session of Phase 3, t(16) ¼ 3.698, p < 0.01. Therefore, the temporal pattern of resurgence differed between the typical and modified resurgence procedures but the total amount of resurgence did not. Model Fits Removing the alternative discriminative stimulus during the Modified resurgence procedure produced more immediate resurgence compared to the Typical resurgence procedure. To assess whether the Shahan and Sweeney (2011) model of resurgence could account for resurgence in the Typical and Modified procedures, we fitted Equation 1 to mean and individual pigeon data from these procedures. We did not fit any models to the Renewal data, although we discuss below the implications of the patterns of responding across phases for interpreting the quantitative modeling of the Typical and Modified procedures. As in previous tests of models based on behavioral momentum theory, we fixed the d parameter to 0.001, b to 0.5 because these values were shown to hold over a range of experimental tests in which they were free to vary, and we determined values of t, Ra, and r from experimental parameters (see Nevin, McLean, & Grace, 2001; Sweeney & Shahan, 2013). Only parameters c and k were free to vary. The left panel of Figure 3 shows response rates in Phases 2 and 3 as a proportion of

Fig. 3. Least-squares regression fits of Equation 1 to mean proportion of Phase 1 (P1) response rates across pigeons from the Typical and Modified resurgence procedures.

RESPONSE COMPETITION, STIMULUS CONTROL, AND REINFORCER CONTROL baseline response rates averaged across pigeons for the Typical procedure. Least-squares regression fit of Equation 1 accounted for 93% of the variance in the mean data, with c ¼ 0.85 and k ¼ 0.11. Table 1 shows fits of Equation 1 to individual-pigeon data, with a median r2 value of .91 (M ¼ .88, SD ¼ .09), median c value of 1.07 (M ¼ 0.99, SD ¼ 0.46), and median k value of 0.11 (M ¼ 0.11, SD ¼ 0.09). The fits of Equation 1 to the data from the Typical procedure and parameter estimates were typical of those observed previously (Shahan & Sweeney, 2011; Sweeney & Shahan, 2013). Nevertheless, Equation 1 predicts a monotonic decrease in resurgence across sessions but these data followed a bitonic pattern across sessions. Therefore, Equation 1 failed to account for the general pattern of resurgence across sessions. The absence of relapse during the Renewal procedure (see Fig. 2, right column) indicates that adding and removing alternative reinforcement played an important role in producing relapse in the Modified resurgence procedure —relapse in the Modified procedure was not solely a function of changing stimulus conditions between phases. Therefore, fitting Equation 1 to the data from the Modified renewal procedure was justified. The right panel of Figure 3 reveals a comparatively poorer fit of Equation 1 to the data from the Modified resurgence procedure. The least-squares regression fit of Equation 1 accounted for 87% of the variance, with c ¼ 0.75 and k ¼ 0.14. Table 1 shows fits of Equation 1 to individual-pigeon data, with a median r2 value of .85 (M ¼ .85, SD ¼ .06), median c value of 0.67 (M ¼ 0.71, SD ¼ 0.27), and median k value of 0.15 (M ¼ 0.16, SD ¼ 0.07). Most importantly, Equation 1 predicts a shallower slope than revealed in Phase 3, indicating different processes likely are Table 1 Parameter estimates from fits of Equation 1 to data from individual pigeons. Typical resurgence Pigeon 111 112 113 114 115

Modified resurgence

c

k

r2

c

k

r2

0.38 1.09 1.64 0.75 1.07

0.11 0.07 0.09 0.17 0.12

0.77 0.91 0.96 0.79 0.96

0.45 0.45 1.06 0.67 0.91

0.07 0.12 0.15 0.19 0.26

0.84 0.93 0.87 0.76 0.85

237

producing the resurgence effects between the Typical and Modified resurgence procedures. Discussion The present study assessed the resurgence of an extinguished target response as a result of (1) extinguishing a more recently reinforced alternative response, both with and without (2) removing the discriminative stimulus for alternative reinforcement. Although the overall levels of resurgence did not differ between procedures, the pattern of resurgence differed systematically. Maintaining the alternative discriminative stimulus with the Typical resurgence procedure resulted in a bitonic resurgence function—the greatest levels of target responding occurred only in sessions following the first session. Conversely, removing the alternative discriminative stimulus with the Modified resurgence procedure produced the greatest resurgence during the first session followed by a monotonic decrease in target responding. Because reinforcement conditions were identical between the Typical and Modified resurgence procedures, one interpretation is that differences in stimulus control between alternative and target responses during Phase 3 primarily determined the different resurgence patterns between procedures. Importantly, a “Renewal” control group received identical stimulus conditions but different reinforcer conditions as those arranged during the Modified resurgence procedure— pecking the alternative stimulus was not reinforced in Phase 2. Because no systematic relapse was found with the Renewal procedure, these findings reveal the contribution of a behavioral process other than reinforcer or stimulus control in resurgence during the present study: response competition between target and alternative responding. First, the absence of renewal reveals the importance of reinforcer control, as shown by the necessity of adding and removing the alternative reinforcement between Phases 2 and 3 during the Modified resurgence procedure. Second, the absence of renewal suggests no clear effect of stimulus control because we observed no clear effect of simply adding and removing the alternative stimulus between Phases 2 and 3 during the Renewal procedure. Finally, the absence of renewal reveals the importance of response competition in producing the different

238


patterns of resurgence between the Typical and Modified procedures. Turning off the alternative discriminative stimulus in Phase 3 of the Modified resurgence procedure eliminated alternative responding. Removing the alternative stimulus was tantamount to removing the alternative response because the pigeons did not peck the dark key, thereby eliminating response competition between target and alternative responding. Similar effects can be observed in procedures arranging less competition between alternative and target responses. For example, Doughty, da Silva, and Lattal (2007) observed a more abrupt resurgence effect when arranging alternative reinforcement to be presented response independently (less competition) compared to response dependently. Therefore, future studies and theoretical development should address the role of response competition, as well as reinforcer and stimulus control, in resurgence. Altogether, the present findings reveal the role of both reinforcer control and response competition in resurgence but little effect of stimulus control. The present findings provide a strong challenge to the notion that control by contextual stimuli primarily govern resurgence, as suggested by Winterbauer and Bouton, 2010 (see Bouton et al., 2012, for a review). Winterbauer and Bouton suggested resurgence is a form of ABC context renewal because the conditions arranged in Phase 3 of a typical resurgence procedure are unlike those arranged in Phases 1 or 2. Nevertheless, the addition of alternative reinforcement in Phase 2 during the Modified procedure could be interpreted as producing a more drastic change in contextual stimuli compared to the absence of alternative reinforcement arranged in the Renewal procedure. This would be consistent with the findings of Todd et al. (2012) who found greater ABA and ABC context renewal when arranging more distinct changes to the stimulus conditions during Context B. Similarly, the lack of relapse in the Renewal procedure would be attributed to an insufficient change in stimulus conditions during Phase 2. Although these interpretations fit within the conceptual framework offered by Bouton and colleagues, it is difficult to devise experimental tests that would produce results inconsistent with this conceptual framework (see McConnell & Miller, 2014, for a relevant discussion).

Conversely, behavioral momentum theory provides a quantitative framework making specific and testable predictions about the determinants of resurgence. Unfortunately, Equation 1 also does not provide conclusive insight into all processes governing resurgence. A major weakness of all existing relapse models based on behavioral momentum theory is they predict resurgence to be greatest during the first session when eliminating alternative reinforcement (Podlesnik & Shahan, 2009, 2010; Shahan & Sweeney, 2011). Consistent with a large number of other studies (e.g., Cançado & Lattal, 2011; Leitenberg, Rawson, & Mulick, 1975; Podlesnik, Jimenez-Gomez, & Shahan, 2006; Podlesnik & Shahan, 2009), resurgence during the Typical procedure peaked only after the first session. As stated, the abrupt resurgence when removing the alternative stimulus in Phase 3 of the Modified procedure suggests alternative responding competed with target responding in the Typical procedure. Therefore, incorporating terms to account for response competition into Equation 1 might be a promising approach to accounting for resurgence generally. Nevertheless, the present study reveals important limitations of all existing models of relapse based on behavioral momentum theory, and a continued need for a general set of equations to account for the processes involved in resurgence. With regard to implementing behavioral treatments, caution should be used in basing treatment decisions on predictions made by Equation 1. The present findings also are relevant to understanding clinical relapse following behavioral treatment using differential reinforcement. In an applied-research study of resurgence in children, Wacker et al. (2013) assessed conditions similar to those arranged in the present study. In Phase 1, escape from demands from parents’ requests maintained destructive problem behavior as the target response. In Phase 2, parents blocked all instances of problem behavior and arranged functional communication training (FCT) as the alternative response. During FCT, children could press a microswitch to initiate an automated “play, please” and 20 to 30 s of playtime as alternative reinforcement. A card with the word play was taped to the touchplate of the microswitch. Finally, Phase 3 eliminated reinforcement from FCT and assessed resurgence of problem behavior separately in the presence and absence of the

RESPONSE COMPETITION, STIMULUS CONTROL, AND REINFORCER CONTROL microswitch. Tests in the presence and absence of the microswitch were analogous to the Typical and Modified resurgence procedures from the present study. Nevertheless, Wacker et al. (2013) found no difference in resurgence of problem behavior between the presence and absence of the microswitch. Several procedural features could account for the different effect of the presence and absence of the alternative discriminative stimulus in Phase 3 of the present study and Wacker et al. (2013). First, the resurgence tests in the presence of the microswitch also removed the card with the word play and no longer produced the automated “play, please” when pressing the microswitch. Therefore, the absence of a difference in resurgence between tests might result from insufficient differences between the stimulus contexts during Phase 3. Second, the resurgence tests were individual 5-min probe sessions, which might not have been of sufficient duration to detect differences in resurgence. Finally, the opportunity to escape from demands supported approximately a third of the response rate required to obtain maximal reinforcement rates. Escape from demands maintained problem behavior only weakly and, therefore, resurgence might have been insensitive to differences between almost any testing conditions. The present study provided a clear demonstration that the conditions present during testing impact resurgence of target responding. Translating basic-research findings into applied situations often occasions questions that are candidates for additional research. For example, the procedures in the Wacker et al. (2013) study resembled those common to basic behavioral research, but were somewhat dissimilar to common applied situations. For example, Wacker et al.(2013) assessed resurgence either when the microswitch included or did not include a card with the word play. This arrangement is similar to the presence or absence of the alternative discriminative stimulus in the present study (i.e., lit or darkened key, respectively). In application, however, it is more common for an alternative response to include a tradable item (e.g., a card). Access to the functional reinforcer is provided contingent on handing the card to a caregiver. The tradable card clearly is in contrast to the card always being present with additional stimuli correlated with reinforcement or extinction, as is the case

239

with pigeon keys. Moreover, the caregiver is often in control of how often an individual obtains access to the card. With a tradable card, the presence of the card may not primarily affect behavior through discriminative processes. It is also possible that the appearance of the card may evoke more acute responses via motivational systems (see Rescorla & Solomon, 1967; Timberlake, 1994, for relevant discussions in basic research). Therefore, future translational research might assess stimulus functions in resurgence by explicitly modeling methods used in applied situations. In conclusion, the present study revealed that the removal of the alternative discriminative stimulus produced a more immediate resurgence of target responding relative to maintaining the alternative discriminative stimulus. We argue the different patterns of resurgence between these two tests likely reveal the combined influence of behavioral processes related to reinforcer control and response competition but little effect of changes in stimulus control. A quantitative model of resurgence based on behavioral momentum (Shahan & Sweeney, 2011) did not adequately account for resurgence in the present study, suggesting a continued need to develop theoretical approaches to help frame questions to uncover the processes underlying resurgence. Existing quantitative models nevertheless remain extremely useful for highlighting the challenges ahead to understanding the range of processes influencing resurgence. These processes will need to be incorporated into those quantitative frameworks to be assessed further. Ultimately, we hope to develop sufficient understanding of these behavioral processes underlying resurgence to provide theoretically and empirically guided treatment decisions. References Bondy, A., & Frost, L. (1994). The picture exchange communication system. Focus on Autistic Behavior, 9, 1–19. Bouton, M. E., Winterbauer, N. E., & Todd, T. P. (2012). Relapse processes after the extinction of instrumental learning: Renewal, resurgence, and reacquisition. Behavioural Processes, 90, 130–141. Cançado, C. R. X., & Lattal, K. A. (2011). Resurgence of temporal patterns of responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 95, 271–287. Carr, E. G., & Durand, V. M. (1985). Reducing behavior problems through functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 111–126.

240


Doughty, A. H., da Silva, S. P., & Lattal, K. A. (2007). Differential resurgence and response elimination. Behavioural Processes, 75, 115–128. Fleshler, M., & Hoffman, H. S. (1962). A progression for generating variable-interval schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 5, 529–530. Leitenberg, H., Rawson, R. A., & Bath, K. (1970). Reinforcement of competing behavior during extinction. Science, 169, 301–303. Leitenberg, H., Rawson, R. A., & Mulick, J. A. (1975). Extinction and reinforcement of alternative behavior. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 88, 640–652. McConnell, B. L., & Miller, R. R. (2014). Associative accounts of recovery-from-extinction effects. Learning and Motivation, 46, 1–15. Merchant, N. J., Li, X., & Shaham, Y. (2013). Recent developments in animal models of drug relapse. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 23, 675–683. Nevin, J. A., & Grace, R. C. (2000). Behavioral momentum and the law of effect. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 73– 130. Nevin, J. A., McLean, A. P., & Grace, R. C. (2001). Resistance to extinction: Contingency termination and generalization decrement. Animal Learning and Behavior, 29, 176– 191. Nevin, J. A., & Shahan, T. A. (2011). Behavioral momentum theory: Equations and applications. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 877–895. Nevin, J. A., & Wacker, D. P. (2013). Response strength and persistence. In G. J. Madden (Ed.-in-Chief), W. V. Dube, T. Hackenberg, G. P. Hanley, & K. A. Lattal, (Assoc. Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology: APA handbook of behavior analysis, vol. 2: Translating principles into practice (pp. 109–128). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Podlesnik, C. A., Bai, J. Y. H., & Elliffe, D. (2012). Resistance to extinction and relapse in combined stimulus contexts. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 98, 169–189. Podlesnik, C. A., Jimenez-Gomez, C., & Shahan, T. A. (2006). Resurgence of alcohol seeking produced by discontinuing non-drug reinforcement as an animal model of drug relapse. Behavioral Pharmacology, 17, 369–374.

Podlesnik, C. A., & Shahan, T. A. (2009). Behavioral momentum and relapse of extinguished operant responding. Learning & Behavior, 37, 357–364. Podlesnik, C. A., & Shahan, T. A. (2010). Extinction, relapse, and behavioral momentum. Behavioural Processes, 84, 400–411. Rescorla, R. A., & Solomon, R. L. (1967). Two-process learning theory: relationships between Pavlovian conditioning and instrumental learning. Psychological Review, 74, 151–182. Shahan, T. A., & Sweeney, M. M. (2011). A model of resurgence based on behavioral momentum theory. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 95, 91– 108. Sweeney, M. M., & Shahan, T. A. (2013). Behavioral momentum and resurgence: Effects of time in extinction and repeated resurgence tests. Learning & Behavior, 41, 414–424. Timberlake, W. (1994). Motivational modes in behavior systems. In R. R. Mowrer & S. B. Klein (Eds.), Contemporary Learning Theories (pp. 155–209). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Volkert, V. M., Lerman, D. C., Call, N. A., & TrosclairLasserre, N. (2009). An evaluation of resurgence during treatment with functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 145–160. Wacker, D. P., Harding, J. W., Berg, W. K., Lee, J. F., Schieltz, K. M., Padilla, Y. C., Nevin, J. A., & Shahan, T. A. (2011). An evaluation of persistence of treatment effects during long-term treatment of destructive behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 96, 261– 282. Wacker, D. P., Harding, J. W., Morgan, T. A., Berg, W. K., Schieltz, K. M., Lee, J. F., & Padilla, Y. C. (2013). An evaluation of resurgence during functional communication training. The Psychological Record, 63, 3–20. Winterbauer, N. E., & Bouton, M. E. (2010). Mechanisms of resurgence of an extinguished instrumental behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 36, 343–353. Received: May 13, 2014 Final Acceptance: July 8, 2014