Search

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]