Abstract
Behavioral momentum theory posits a paradoxical implication for behavioral interventions in clinical situations using differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA): When alternative reinforcers are presented within the same context as the problem behavior, the added reinforcers may decrease the frequency of the behavior but also increase its persistence when the intervention ends. Providing alternative reinforcers in a setting that is distinctively different from that in which the target behavior occurs may avoid or reduce this increase in persistence. The present experiment compared behavioral persistence following standard DRA versus DRA in a different context that was available after refraining from target behavior (differential reinforcement of other behavior; DRO). We arranged a human laboratory model of treatment intervention using computer games and token reinforcement. Participants were five individuals with intellectual disabilities. Experimental phases included (a) an initial multiple-schedule baseline with token reinforcement for target behaviors A and B, (b) an intervention phase with alternative reinforcement using a conventional DRA procedure for A and a DRO-DRA procedure for B, and (c) an extinction phase with no interventions and no tokens. Response rates as proportion of baseline in the initial extinction phase were greater for A than for B for three of five participants. Four participants whose response rates remained relatively high during the extinction phase then received a second extinction-plus-distraction test with leisure items available. Response rates were greater for A than for B in three of four participants. The results indicate that DRO-DRA contingencies may contribute to reduced postintervention persistence of problem behavior.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Craig, A. R., Cunningham, P. J., Sweeney, M. M., Shahan, T. A., & Nevin, J. A. (2017). Delivering alternative reinforcement in a distinct context reduces its counter-therapeutic effects on relapse. Manuscript revised and submitted for publication.
Craig, A. R., Nevin, J. A., & Odum, A. L. (2014). Behavioral momentum and resistance to change. In F. K. McSweeney & E. S. Murphy (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of operant and classical conditioning (pp. 249–274). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Dube, W. V., Ahearn, W. H., Lionello-DeNolf, K. M., & McIlvane, W. J. (2009). Behavioral momentum: Translational research in intellectual and developmental disabilities. The Behavior Analyst Today, 10, 238–253.
Dunn, L. M., Dunn, D. M., & Assessments, P. (2007). PPVT-4: Peabody picture vocabulary test. Minneapolis: Pearson Assessments.
Higgins, S. T., Heil, S. H., & Sigmon, S. C. (2013). Voucher-based contingency management in the treatment of substance use disorders. In G. J. Madden (Ed.), APA handbooks in psychology: APA handbook of behavior analysis (Translating principles into practice, Vol. 2, pp. 481–500). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Mace, F. C., Lalli, J. S., Shea, M. C., Pinter, Lalli, E., West, B. J., … & Nevin, J. A. (1990). The momentum of human behavior in a natural setting. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 163–172.
Mace, F. C., McComas, J. J., Mauro, B. C., Progar, P. R., Ervin, R., & Zangrillo, A. N. (2010). Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior increases resistance to extinction: Clinical demonstration, animal modeling, and clinical test of one solution. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 93, 349–367.
Nevin, J. A., & Grace, R. C. (2000). Behavioral momentum and the Law of Effect Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 73–130.
Nevin, J. A., & Wacker, D. P. (2013). Response strength and behavioral persistence. In G. J. Madden (Ed.), APA handbooks in psychology: APA handbook of behavior analysis (Translating principles into practice, Vol. 2, pp. 109–128). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Parry-Cruwys, D. E., Neal, C. M., Ahearn, W. H., Wheeler, E. E., Premchander, R., Loeb, M. B., & Dube, W. V. (2011). Resistance to disruption in a classroom setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 363–367.
Petscher, E. S., Rey, C., & Bailey, J. S. (2009). A review of empirical support for differential reinforcement of alternative behavior. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 409–425.
Podlesnik, C. A., Bai, J. Y., & Elliffe, D. (2012). Resistance to extinction and relapse in combined stimulus contexts. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 98, 169–189.
Rooker, G. W., Jessel, J., Kurtz, P. F., & Hagopian, L. P. (2013). Functional communication training with and without alternative reinforcement and punishment: An analysis of 58 applications. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 708–722. doi:10.1002/jaba.76.
Shahan, T. A., & Sweeney, M. M. (2011). A model of resurgence based on behavioral momentum theory. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 95, 91–108.
Silverman, K. (2004). Exploring the limits and utility of operant conditioning in the treatment of drug addiction. The Behavior Analyst, 27, 209–230.
Silverman, K., DeFulio, A., & Sigurdsson, S. O. (2012). Maintenance of reinforcement to address the chronic nature of drug addiction. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 55(Suppl. 1), S46–S53.
Sweeney, M. M., Moore, K., Shahan, T. A., Ahearn, W. H., Dube, W. V., & Nevin, J. A. (2014). Modeling the effects of sensory reinforcers on behavioral persistence with alternative reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 102, 252–266.
Acknowledgements
The research reported here was supported in part by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development under award No. R01HD064576 to the University of New Hampshire and P30HD004147 to the University of Massachusetts Medical School. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The third author was a member of the National Institute of Science and Technology on Behavior, Cognition, and Teaching (INCT-ECCE), and supported by a doctoral scholarship from the São Paulo Research Foundation, FAPESP 2011/12847-2 and 2015/08332-8; he thanks Deisy de Souza (INCT-ECCE Director) and his advisors Julio C. de Rose and Harry A. Mackay. The authors thank Dr. Christophe Gerard and Vadim Droznin for computer software; the Shriver Center’s Clinical and Translational Research Support Core for assistance with participant recruitment, and the staff and students of the New England Center for Children, Southborough, MA for their cooperation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest Statement
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dube, W.V., Thompson, B., Silveira, M.V. et al. The Role of Contingencies and Stimuli in a Human Laboratory Model of Treatment of Problem Behavior. Psychol Rec 67, 463–471 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-017-0248-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-017-0248-x