Responding Maintained by Intermittent Reinforcement: Implications for the Use of Extinction With Problem Behavior in Clinical Settings

Abstract

Results of basic research have demonstrated that behavior maintained on an intermittent schedule of reinforcement (INT) will be extinguished more slowly than behavior maintained on a continuous schedule (CRF). Although these findings suggest that problem behaviors may be difficult to treat with extinction if they have been maintained on INT rather than on CRF schedules, few applied studies have examined this phenomenon with human behavior in clinical settings. The purpose of this study was to determine whether problem behavior maintained on CRF schedules would be extinguished more rapidly than behavior maintained on INT schedules. Three individuals diagnosed with profound mental retardation participated after results of pretreatment functional analyses had identified the sources of reinforcement that were maintaining their self-injury, aggression, or disruption. Subjects were exposed to extinction following baseline conditions with CRF or INT schedules alternated within reversal or multielement designs. Results suggested that problem behavior may not be more difficult to treat with extinction if they have been maintained on INT rather than CRF schedules. However, switching from an INT to a CRF schedule prior to extinction may lower the baseline response rate as well as the total number of responses exhibited during extinction.

Developing a Technology for the Use of Operant Extinction in Clinical Settings: An Examination of Basic and Applied Research

“…In addition, reinforcement schedules may increase the likelihood or amount of other characteristics of responding, including resistance to extinction and disinhibition, and may alter the effects of reinforcement magnitude on resistance. Nevertheless, only a few applied studies have examined the PREE (e.g., R. Baer, Blount, Detrich, & Stokes, 1987;Kazdin & Polster, 1973;Koegel & Rincover, 1977), and each contains some potential limitations that prevent clear interpretation of the data (see Lerman, Iwata, Shore, & Kahng, 1996, for a detailed discussion of these problems).…”

“…A recent study by Lerman et al (1996) examined the PREE with severe behavior disorders using two different experimental designs and measures of resistance recommended by Nevin (1988). After sources of reinforcement that were maintaining 3 subjects' self-injury, aggression, or disruption were identified via functional analyses, the individuals were exposed to extinction following baseline conditions with CRF or PRF schedules alternated within reversal or multielement designs.…”

“…Studies in this area must involve identification of the maintaining reinforcers for inappropriate behavior and a comparison of responding during extinction following delivery of the relevant reinforcer on PRF schedules versus a switch from PRF to CRF schedules. Lerman et al (1996), who implemented this strategy with 1 subject, found that switching from a PRF to a CRF schedule prior to extinction lowered the total number of responses exhibited during extinction. However, this outcome was attributed to the differences in baseline response rates associated with the different reinforcement conditions (responding under the CRF schedule was much lower than responding under the PRF schedule).…”

A Tribute to Sidney W. Bijou, Pioneer in Behavior Analysis and Child Development: Key Works That Have Transformed Behavior Analysis in Practice

“…This influential paper not only aided practitioners by making reinforcer deliveries more practical, but also greatly aided the clients they served. Bijou's studies on patterns of reinforcement with children are undoubtedly amongst some of the greatest contributions to the field, as evidenced by current research on practices such as error correction (e.g., Worsdell et al, 2005), punishment of problem behavior (e.g., Lerman, Iwata, Shore, & DeLeon, 1997), extinction of problem behavior (e.g., Lerman, Iwata, Shore, & Kahng, 1996), functional communication training (e.g., Worsdell et al, 2000), and delayed reinforcement (e.g., Freeland & Noell, 1999), to name a few areas of research informed by Bijou's work.…”

Thirty Points About Motivation From Skinner’s Book Verbal Behavior

“…) Point #9: MOs are separate from schedules of reinforcement A high rate of behavior can be generated by the manipulation of various schedules of reinforcement (Ferster & Skinner, 1957). For example, a variable ratio schedule of reinforcement for self-injury, aggression, or other 20 problem behaviors can generate strong and persistent patterns of behavior that may be difficult to reduce (e.g., Lerman, Iwata, Shore, & Kahng, 1996). Strong and persistent behavior can also be a function of powerful antecedent variables such as extreme deprivation, or painful aversive stimulation.…”