Persistence of Stereotypic Behavior: Examining the Effects of External Reinforcers

Abstract

Basic research has shown that behavioral persistence is often positively related to rate of reinforcement. This relation, expressed in the metaphor of behavioral momentum, has potentially important implications for clinical application. The current study examined one prediction of the momentum metaphor for automatically reinforced behavior. Participants were 3 children who had been diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder and who engaged in stereotypic behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement. Results suggested that stereotypic behavior was more resistant to disruption following periods of access to preferred stimuli delivered on a variable-time schedule than following periods without access to preferred stimuli. The implications of these findings for the treatment of automatically reinforced behavior are discussed.

Behavioral momentum of cocaine self-administration: effects of frequency of reinforcement on resistance to extinction

“…Nevin et al, 1990). This result has been replicated with a variety of reinforcers and species ranging from fish to humans (Mace et al, 1990;Cohen, 1996;Harper, 1999;Grimes and Shull, 2001;Ahearn et al, 2003;Igaki and Sakagami, 2004;Shahan and Burke, 2004). Nevin et al (1990) have suggested that such effects of the Pavlovian stimulus-reinforcer relation on the persistence of operant behavior are likely similar to other motivational effects attributed to arousal, a central motivational state, or the incentive-motivational properties of conditioned stimuli (e.g.…”

Stereotypy in autism: The importance of function

“…Another study found that children engaged in higher rates of repetitive behaviors while in the presence of an unfamiliar person as compared to a familiar person (Runco, Charlop, & Schreibman, 1986). Additionally, other research has provided evidence for the effect of tangible reinforcement on the frequency and duration of stereotypic behaviors (Ahearn, et al, 2003). These data collectively suggest that external stimuli, rather than only intrinsic automatic reinforcers, may also operate on stereotypy.…”

“…However, another growing body of literature specifies that stereotypic behavior may be determined by other reinforcement contingencies (Kennedy, et al, 2000;Repp, et al, 1988). For example, stereotypy has been shown to operate under the control of social reinforcement (Durand & Carr, 1987) and tangible reinforcement contingencies (Ahearn et al, 2003). Interpretations of stereotypic behaviors should not presume that sharing a specific topography necessarily involves also belonging to the same response class.…”

“…However, the term stereotypy is not synonymous with self-stimulatory behavior. A growing body of literature suggests that stereotypy is multiply determined and often enters into contingencies of social positive and negative reinforcement (Ahearn, Clark, Gardener, Chung, & Dube, 2003;Durand & Carr, 1987;Kennedy, Meyer, Knowles, & Shukla, 2000;Repp, Felce, & Barton, 1988). Consistent with the general literature regarding the need for treatment individualization in autism (National Research Council, 2001;Schreibman, 2000Schreibman, , 2005Sherer & Schreibman, 2005;Yoder & Compton, 2004), it is important to design behavioral interventions that target stereotypy according to the functional response class to which behaviors belong rather than the topographical form alone and the assumption of automatic reinforcement as the maintaining contingency.…”

Training reinforcement rates, resistance to extinction, and the role of context in reinstatement

“…Moreover, greater reinforcement rates produce greater resistance to disruption irrespective of whether the additional reinforcement is presented response independently, as in Podlesnik and Shahan (2009), dependent on the same response (e.g., Nevin, 1974;Nevin, Mandell, & Atak, 1983), or contingent upon a concurrently available response (e.g., Mauro & Mace, 1996;Nevin et al, 1990;Podlesnik, Bai, & Elliffe, 2012;Rau, Pickering, & McLean, 1996). These findings are generally robust and have been observed in a variety of animal species, ranging from fish to humans, as well as several response types and reinforcer manipulations (Ahearn, Clark, Gardenier, Chung, & Dube, 2003;Cohen, 1996;Grimes & Shull, 2001;Harper, 1999;Igaki & Sakagami, 2004;Mace et al, 1990;Shahan & Burke, 2004). However, exceptions to the finding that resistance to disruption is independent from baseline response rate responding have been observed (e.g., Lattal, 1989;Nevin, Grace, Holland, & McLean, 2001;Podlesnik, JimenezGomez, Ward, & Shahan, 2006).…”