Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior and Response Suppression: The Effects of the Response-Reinforcement Interval (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Psychological Record, 1985
Extinction and four reinforcement-based procedures for eliminating a response were compared in groups of 10 rats. Two procedures provided for reinforcement of a specific alternative behavior (ALT-R) while two others were differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) contingencies. The effect of 10-s and 1-s response-reinforcement intervals was examined with each of the ALT-R and DRO groups in (a) a training phase, in which an original response was established, (b) a response elimination phase, (c) an extinction phase, and (d) a reacquisition phase. Results indicated (a) the fastest response elimination occurred in the ALT-R 10-s group and the slowest occurred in the DRO 1-s group; (b) all reinforcement-based procedures showed an increase in original lever responses during the extinction phase, but (c) this effect was lessened for both the groups that had experienced the 10-s response-reinforcement interval; (d) all groups showed rapid recovery of the original lever responses during reacquisition, but (e) slower recovery was shown in the DRO 10-s group.
Acquisition and extinction of an operant response in differentially reared rats
Developmental Psychobiology, 1977
Rats reared in either socially isolated or control environments were trained to bar press for food on a variable interval schedule of reinforcement, beginning at 125 days of age for 37 consecutive days. Following this phase the subjects were tested for response persistence during an extinction test. Next, the subjects were compared on measures of spontaneous recovery and the rate of response reacquisition when the reinforcement contingencies were once again reinstated. Though no differences were discerned between the groups on measures of acquisition, maintenance, and reacquisition, isolated rats emitted many more responses than the controls during extinction testing.
Response decrements produced by extinction and by response-independent reinforcement1
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1973
The effects of extinction and of response-independent (free) reinforcement in decreasing rates of key pecking by pigeons were compared in single schedule (Phase 1) and multiple (Phase 2) conditions. In both phases, response rates decreased more rapidly vith extinction than with free reinforcement conditions. Behavioral contrast was obtained from subjects trained in a multiple schedule involving extinction in Phase 2, whereas subjects trained in a multiple schedule involving free reinforcement showed a slight negative induction effect. WVhether subjects experienced extinction or free reinforcenment under single stimulus conditions did not affect subsequent performance in the discrimination situation of the second phase. Disinhibition testing was carried out at the end of both phases, but there was no evidence for disinhibitory effects under any condition.
Competition between noncontingent and contingent reinforcement schedules during response acquisition
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2000
We examined the extent to which noncontingent reinforcement (NCR), when used as treatment to reduce problem behavior, might interfere with differential reinforcement contingencies designed to strengthen alternative behavior. After conducting a functional analysis to identify the reinforcers maintaining 2 participants' self-injurious behavior (SIB), we delivered those reinforcers under dense NCR schedules. We delivered the same reinforcers concurrently under differential-reinforcement-of-alternative-behavior (DRA) contingencies in an attempt to strengthen replacement behaviors (mands). Results showed that the NCR plus DRA intervention was associated with a decrease in SIB but little or no increase in appropriate mands. In a subsequent phase, when the NCR schedule was thinned while the DRA schedule remained unchanged, SIB remained low and mands increased. These results suggest that dense NCR schedules may alter establishing operations that result in not only suppression of problem behavior but also interference with the acquisition of appropriate behavior. Thus, the strengthening of socially appropriate behaviors as replacements for problem behavior during NCR interventions might best be achieved if the NCR schedule is first thinned.
Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition, 2015
Resurgence has commonly been viewed as the recovery of an extinguished instrumental behavior that occurs when an alternative behavior that has replaced it is also extinguished. Three experiments with rat subjects examined the effects on resurgence of the temporal distribution of reinforcement for the alternative behavior that is presented while the first response is being eliminated. Experiments 1 and 2 examined resurgence when rich rates of reinforcement at the onset of response elimination became leaner over sessions (i.e., forward thinning) and when lean rates became richer (i.e., reverse thinning). Both procedures weakened resurgence compared with that in a group that received the richest rate during all sessions. However, forward thinning was more effective than reverse thinning at reducing the resurgence effect. Experiment 3 found that final resurgence was eliminated when the alternative behavior was reinforced and extinguished in alternating response elimination sessions. The...
A Comparison of Extinction and Reinforcement-Based Response Elimination Technique
1984
Over a period of eight daily sessions, 40 male rats acquired an operant lever response under an FI 10-sec schedule of reinforcement. Following this training the subjects were randomly assigned to one of four treatment conditions designed to eliminate this response: 1) extinction (EXT), 2) differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO), 3) reinforcement of an alternate response (ALT-R1), or 4) reinforcement of an alternate response .El.!!§ a response-reinforcement delay for the original response (ALT-R10). These four response elimination contingencies were compared under three experimental conditions: 1) a five session treatment phase in which each response elimination procedure was in effect, 2) a five session extinction phase in which no reinforcement was available for any of the four groups, and 3) a single reacguisition session in which reinforcement was reinstated for the original rQsponse_ Th e results 0£ th e treatment phase showed the ALT-R10 procedure to be significantly...
Reinforcement Magnitude and Responding During Treatment with Differential Reinforcement
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2002
Basic findings indicate that the amount or magnitude of reinforcement can influence free‐operant responding prior to and during extinction. In this study, the relation between reinforcement magnitude and adaptive behavior was evaluated with 3 children as part of treatment with differential reinforcement. In the first experiment, a communicative response was shaped and maintained by the same reinforcer that was found to maintain problem behavior. Two reinforcement magnitudes (20‐s or 60‐s access to toys or escape from demands) were compared and found to be associated with similar levels of resistance to extinction. The relation between reinforcement magnitude and response maintenance was further evaluated in the second experiment by exposing the communicative response to 20‐s or 300‐s access to toys or escape. Results for 2 participants suggested that this factor may alter the duration of postreinforcement pauses.
The role of response-reinforcer correlation in signaled reinforcement effects
Animal Learning & Behavior, 1990
In three experiments, we examined the effectsof signaling reinforcement during operant responding in order to illuminate the factors underlying instrumental overshadowing and potentiation effects. Specifically, we examined whether signaling reinforcement produces an enhancement and attentuation of responding when the response-reinforcer correlation is weak and strong, respectively. In Experiment 1, rats responded on variable-ratio (VR) or variable-interval (VI) schedules that were equated for the number ofresponses emitted per reinforcer. A signal correlated with reinforcement enhanced response rates on the VR schedule, but attenuated response rates were produced by the signal on the VI schedule. In Experiment 2, two groups of rats responded on a VI schedule while the two other groups received a conjoint VI, negative fixed-ratio schedule in which the subjects lost the availability of reinforcements if they emitted high response rates. A reinforcement signal attenuated responding for the simple VI groups but not for the animals given the negative fixed-ratio component, although the signal improved response efficiency in both groups. In Experiment 3, a poor correlation between responding and reinforcement was produced by a VI schedule onto which the delivery of response-independent food was superimposed. A signal for reinforcement initially elevated responding on this schedule, relative to an unsignaled condition; however, this pattern was reversed with further training. In sum, the present experiments provide little support for the view that signaling reinforcement enhances responding when the response-reinforcer correlation is weak and attenuates responding when this correlation is strong.