Search

Previously reinforced responses can reappear when reinforcement is withdrawn from current responding. This is known as resurgence. Although resurgence of response topography, spacing, and patterns over time has been demonstrated, there is no evidence of resurgence of response duration. This experiment explored resurgence of response duration in humans. In Phase 1 a multiple schedule of reinforcement with two components was used. In each component a chained variable-interval 30 s, variable-ratio 3 schedule was implemented. In the terminal link of the chained schedule, response durations between 0.1 and 0.5 s were reinforced during one component, and between 2 and 8 s in the other component. In Phase 2, response requirement during the terminal link of the chained schedule was inverted between components relative to Phase 1. In Phase 3 the chained schedule was changed to a variable-interval 30-s, extinction 30 s. Resurgence of the durations trained during Phase 1 was observed. It was concluded that duration is a response dimension that reappears during extinction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The relation between persistence, as measured by resistance to change, and resurgence has been examined with nonhuman animals but not systematically with humans. The present study examined persistence and resurgence with undergraduate students engaging in a computer task for points exchangeable for money. In Phase 1, a target response was maintained on a multiple variable-interval (VI) 15-s (Rich) VI 60-s (Lean) schedule of reinforcement. In Phase 2, the target response was extinguished while an alternative response was reinforced at equal rates in both schedule components. In Phase 3, the target and the alternative responses were extinguished. In an additional test of persistence (Phase 4), target responding was reestablished as in Phase 1 and then disrupted by access to videos in both schedule components. In Phases 2 and 4, target responding was more persistent in the Rich than in the Lean component. Also, resurgence generally was greater in the Rich than in the Lean component in Phase 3. The present findings with humans extend the generality of those obtained with nonhuman animals showing that higher reinforcement rates produce both greater persistence and resurgence, and suggest that common processes underlie response persistence and relapse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Resurgence occurs when a previously reinforced and then extinguished target response increases due to a worsening of reinforcement conditions for an alternative response. We conducted four crowdsourcing experiments to evaluate effects of alternative-reinforcer rate and magnitude on resurgence with humans. Contingent on an alternative response, we manipulated across groups either the rate of point delivery (Experiment 1) or number of points delivered per reinforcer (Experiments 2–3). Experiment 4 arranged combinations of high- or low-rate and high- or low-magnitude alternative reinforcement across four groups. When extinguishing alternative responding across experiments, we observed resurgence of target responding with relatively high rates of alternative reinforcement but differences in reinforcer magnitude did not influence resurgence. A quantitative model based on the concatenated matching law, Resurgence as Choice in Context (RaC2), provided a poor fit to the data, generally underpredicted target responding, and could not account for data from control groups experiencing extinction of target responding in the absence of alternative reinforcement. We then fit a modified version of RaC2 borrowing an assumption from theories of choice that suggest some proportion of reinforcers are misallocated between responses – this modified version of RaC2 provided a better account of these findings. • Examined effects of reinforcer rate and magnitude on resurgence through crowdsourcing. • In four experiments, greater reinforcer rates but not magnitudes increased resurgence. • We fit a quantitative model based on matching, Resurgence as Choice in Context (RaC2). • RaC2 fits improved when assuming reinforcers are misallocated between responses. • Misallocation also allowed RaC2 to be fit for the first time to simple extinction data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Resurgence occurs when a worsening of conditions for an alternative response (e.g., extinction) increases a previously reinforced and subsequently extinguished target response. In contrast, renewal is an increase in a response previously eliminated by extinction following a contextual change. Moreover, arranging contextual changes during resurgence tests has enhanced relapse compared with the absence of contextual changes. Several laboratory studies evaluating resurgence in humans have included interruptions of operant tasks by presenting instructions or "blackouts" immediately prior to phase changes in which reinforcement contingencies change. Such interruptions could enhance relapse during testing similarly to changes in contextual stimuli. We tested this possibility in the present study with human participants recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk by interrupting the task across groups with 1-s blackouts every 12 s, 60 s, between phases, or by arranging no blackouts in a control group. We found that blackouts prior to phase changes increased resurgence effects relative to no blackouts, suggesting that blackouts between phases are a type of contextual manipulation serving to increase the salience of contingency changes. • Evaluated whether blackouts serve as contextual stimuli to enhance resurgence. • Brief blackouts between phase changes increased resurgence compared to no blackouts. • Between-phase blackouts could increase salience of contingency changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Laboratory models of relapse provide methods for evaluating challenges to behavioral treatments with differential reinforcement of an alternative response (DRA). Resurgence occurs with the worsening of conditions of reinforcement for appropriate behavior and renewal occurs when transitioning out of a treatment context. Across five experiments, participants recruited via online crowdsourcing pressed onscreen buttons to earn points exchangeable for money and contexts sometimes changed through changes in the background image. Returning to the training context (ABA, Experiment 1) and transitioning to a novel context (ABC, Experiment 2) produced greater resurgence when removing alternative reinforcement in comparison with remaining in the treatment context (ABB). In contrast, we observed little difference in resurgence among AAA, ABB, and AAC context manipulations (Experiment 3) and ABA, ABC, and AAC context manipulations (Experiment 4). In Experiment 5, we evaluated relative contributions of the presence versus absence of context changes (ABA vs. ABB) in combination with or without the removal of alternative reinforcement. Both changing context and removing alternative reinforcement increased responding in isolation and the combination produced greater-than-additive effects. Overall, the present findings demonstrate a consistent effect of removing alternative reinforcement on relapse that, under certain conditions, can be enhanced by context change. • We evaluated effects of context changes on resurgence of a button press with humans. • ABA and ABC context changes enhanced resurgence relative to ABB context changes. • Similar levels of resurgence occurred with AAA, ABB, and AAC context changes. • Similar levels of resurgence occurred with ABA, ABC, and AAC context changes. • Context changes and extinction produced greater-than-additive response increases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The effects of context on resurgence magnitude was assessed with humans. • Responding was maintained by negative-reinforcement contingencies. • The resurgence procedure was combined with both ABA and ABB renewal procedures. • Resurgence of greater magnitude occurred in the ABA than in the ABB condition. The effects of context on the resurgence of negatively reinforced (escape) responding was studied in an experiment with undergraduate students in which resurgence and renewal procedures were combined. Across conditions, in baseline (BL), key-pressing produced 3-s timeouts from pressing a force cell on a variable-ratio schedule of reinforcement; in the Alternative-Reinforcement and Test phases, a differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule and extinction were in effect, respectively. Conditions differed according to the context (the computer-screen color) in effect in each phase: ABA vs. ABB (with each letter representing a context; order of exposure to conditions was counterbalanced across participants). For each of six participants, independent of (a) order of exposure to conditions, (b) slight differences in BL reinforcement, and (c) differences in BL key-pressing rates, resurgence of greater magnitude occurred in the ABA than in the ABB condition. These results replicate and extend to contingencies of negative reinforcement previous findings with nonhumans and humans showing that context modulates the magnitude of resurgence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]