“Other” behavior and the <scp>DRO</scp>: The roles of extinction and reinforcement

Hangen, Marcella M.; Romero, Ashley Nicole; Neidert, Pamela L.; Borrero, John C.

doi:10.1002/jaba.736

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Between‐experiment differences in resistance to extinction may, in part, be attributable to differences in response competition produced by DRO reinforcement and reinforcement of an overtly trained alternative operant response. Conceptually, DRO entails reinforcement of unspecified behaviors other than the behavior that is targeted for elimination, but the development and maintenance of such behaviors are not always apparent when DRO reinforcement schedules are applied (see Hangen et al, 2020). This interpretation is speculative, however, and it does not appear to provide a straightforward explanation for increased rates of lever pressing in extinction relative to baseline in the present Experiment 2.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nondrug reinforcers contingent on alternative behavior or abstinence increase resistance to extinction and reinstatement of ethanol‐maintained behavior

Craig

Shahan

2022

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of delivering nondrug alternative reinforcement on resistance to extinction and reinstatement of rats' ethanol‐maintained lever pressing were evaluated in two experiments. In both, rats self‐administered ethanol by lever pressing in a two‐component multiple schedule during baseline. In the Rich component, alternative food reinforcement was made available for performing an alternative response (Experiment 1) or according to a differential‐reinforcement‐of‐other‐behavior schedule for lever pressing (Experiment 2). In the Lean component, only ethanol was available. Moreover, the frequency of alternative reinforcement was manipulated across conditions in Experiment 1. Following baseline, lever pressing was extinguished in both components by suspending ethanol reinforcement, and alternative food reinforcers were discontinued. Finally, to test for reinstatement, ethanol reinforcers were delivered independently of lever pressing in both components. In both experiments, proportion‐of‐baseline response rates were higher during extinction and reinstatement testing in the Rich component than in the Lean component (although differentiation was not observed at the lowest frequency of alternative reinforcement in Experiment 1). Thus, alternative nondrug reinforcers increased resistance to extinction and reinstatement of rats' ethanol‐maintained lever pressing, even when those reinforcers were delivered contingently on an alternative response or on abstinence from lever pressing.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nondrug reinforcers contingent on alternative behavior or abstinence increase resistance to extinction and reinstatement of ethanol‐maintained behavior

Craig

Shahan

2022

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A multiple stimulus without replacement assessment ( DeLeon & Iwata, 1996 ) was conducted to identify four moderately preferred colors and to establish that participants could discriminate colors. The third-, fourth-, fifth, and sixth-ranked colors were used in the participant preference evaluation to minimize the potential effects of color bias ( Hangen et al, 2020 ). The therapist then randomly assigned colored cards to represent baseline and each of the three reinforcement conditions.…”

Section: Preexperimental Assessmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accumulated‐ and distributed‐reinforcer arrangements in the treatment of challenging mealtime behavior

Chen

Borrero

Frank‐Crawford

et al. 2022

Behavioral Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Treatment for inappropriate mealtime behavior often includes extinction and differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) in a distributed arrangement in which delivery of brief reinforcer access immediately follows each appropriate mealtime response. Alternatively, DRA may be arranged using accumulated reinforcement wherein delivery of longer, continuous access to reinforcers follows the consumption of multiple consecutive bites. Research has suggested that individuals prefer and perform better under accumulated arrangements in academic settings; however, no research to date has evaluated the efficacy of accumulated arrangements with children with feeding disorders. We compared preference for and efficacy of distributed and accumulated (with and without tokens) reinforcement with nonremoval of the spoon. All three treatments effectively reduced inappropriate mealtime behavior and increased acceptance for two participants and decreased packing and increased mouth clean for one participant. Two participants preferred distributed reinforcement and one preferred accumulated reinforcement without tokens. Findings differ from some previous research, which demonstrated that participants favored accumulated arrangements in academic contexts.

show abstract

“…3 Applied and translational studies on "other" behavior in DRO schedules could also provide a model for this research (e.g., Hangen et al, 2020;Iannaccone et al, 2020;Jessel et al, 2015). 4 In the applied literature, this kind of contingency is typically referred to as a resetting interval DRO (differential reinforcement of other behavior; Gehrman et al, 2017).…”

Section: Conflicts Of Interestmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bridging the Gap Between Laboratory and Applied Research on Response-Independent Schedules

Ingvarsson¹,

Fernández²

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1948, Skinner described the behavior of pigeons under response-independent schedules as “superstitious,” and proposed that the responses were reinforced by contiguous, adventitious food deliveries. Subsequently, response-independent schedules have been of interest to both basic and applied researchers, first to understand the mechanisms involved, and later, as “noncontingent reinforcement” (NCR) to reduce undesirable behavior. However, the potential superstitious effects produced by these schedules have been challenged, with some researchers arguing that antecedent variables play a significant role. This paper examines the evidence for adventitious reinforcement from both laboratory and applied research, the results of which suggest that antecedent, non-operant functions may be important in fully understanding the effects of NCR. We propose an applied-basic research synthesis, in which attention to potential non-operant functions could provide a more complete understanding of response-independent schedules. We conclude with a summary of the applied implications of the non-operant functions of NCR schedules.

show abstract

“Other” behavior and the DRO: The roles of extinction and reinforcement

Cited by 10 publications

References 30 publications

Nondrug reinforcers contingent on alternative behavior or abstinence increase resistance to extinction and reinstatement of ethanol‐maintained behavior

Nondrug reinforcers contingent on alternative behavior or abstinence increase resistance to extinction and reinstatement of ethanol‐maintained behavior

Accumulated‐ and distributed‐reinforcer arrangements in the treatment of challenging mealtime behavior

Bridging the Gap Between Laboratory and Applied Research on Response-Independent Schedules

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About