Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 2002 May;77(3):211–231. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2002.77-211

Response rate viewed as engagement bouts: resistance to extinction.

Richard L Shull 1, Scott T Gaynor 1, Julie A Grimes 1
PMCID: PMC1284858  PMID: 12083677

Abstract

Rats obtained food pellets by nose poking a lighted key, the illumination of which alternated every 50 s during a session between blinking and steady, signaling either a relatively rich (60 per hour) or relatively lean (15 per hour) rate of reinforcement. During one training condition, all the reinforcers in the presence of the rich-reinforcement signal were response dependent (i.e., a variable-interval schedule); during another condition only 25% were response dependent (i.e., a variable-time schedule operated concurrently with a variable-interval schedule). An extinction session followed each training block. For both kinds of training schedule, and consistent with prior results, response rate was more resistant to extinction in the presence of the rich-reinforcement signal than in the presence of the lean-reinforcement signal. Analysis of interresponse-time distributions from baseline showed that differential resistance to extinction was not related to baseline differences in the rate of initiating response bouts or in the length of bouts. Also, bout-initiation rate (like response rate) was most resistant to extinction in the presence of the rich-reinforcement signal. These results support the proposal of behavioral momentum theory (e.g., Nevin & Grace, 2000) that resistance to extinction in the presence of a discriminative stimulus is determined more by the stimulus-reinforcer (Pavlovian) than by the stimulus-response-reinforcer (operant) contingency.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (264.0 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Blough D. S. Interresponse time as a function of continuous variables: a new method and some data. J Exp Anal Behav. 1963 Apr;6(2):237–246. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1963.6-237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Burgess I. S., Wearden J. H. Superimposition of response-independent reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1986 Jan;45(1):75–82. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1986.45-75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cohen S. L. Behavioral momentum: the effects of the temporal separation of rates of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1998 Jan;69(1):29–47. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1998.69-29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Davison M., Charman L. On the measurement of time allocation on multiple variable-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1986 Nov;46(3):353–362. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1986.46-353. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Doughty A. H., Lattal K. A. Resistance to change of operant variation and repetition. J Exp Anal Behav. 2001 Sep;76(2):195–215. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2001.76-195. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. FLESHLER M., HOFFMAN H. S. A progression for generating variable-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1962 Oct;5:529–530. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1962.5-529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. GILBERT T. F. Fundamental dimensional properties of the operant. Psychol Rev. 1958 Sep;65(5):272–282. doi: 10.1037/h0044071. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Grace R. C., Nevin J. A. Comparing preference and resistance to change in constant- and variable-duration schedule components. J Exp Anal Behav. 2000 Sep;74(2):165–188. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2000.74-165. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Grace R., Nevin J. On the relation between preference and resistance to change. J Exp Anal Behav. 1997 Jan;67(1):43–65. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1997.67-43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Grimes J. A., Shull R. L. Response-independent milk delivery enhances persistence of pellet-reinforced lever pressing by rats. J Exp Anal Behav. 2001 Sep;76(2):179–194. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2001.76-179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Hantula D. A. A simple BASIC program to generate values for variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. J Appl Behav Anal. 1991 Winter;24(4):799–801. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1991.24-799. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Mace F. C., Lalli J. S., Shea M. C., Lalli E. P., West B. J., Roberts M., Nevin J. A. The momentum of human behavior in a natural setting. J Exp Anal Behav. 1990 Nov;54(3):163–172. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.54-163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Mauro B. C., Mace F. C. Differences in the effect of Pavlovian contingencies upon behavioral momentum using auditory versus visual stimuli. J Exp Anal Behav. 1996 Mar;65(2):389–399. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1996.65-389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Mellon R. C., Shull R. L. Resistance to change produced by access to fixed-delay versus variable-delay terminal links. J Exp Anal Behav. 1986 Jul;46(1):79–92. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1986.46-79. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Neuringer A., Kornell N., Olufs M. Stability and variability in extinction. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2001 Jan;27(1):79–94. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Nevin J. A. An integrative model for the study of behavioral momentum. J Exp Anal Behav. 1992 May;57(3):301–316. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1992.57-301. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Nevin J. A., Baum W. M. Feedback functions for variable-interval reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1980 Sep;34(2):207–217. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.34-207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Nevin J. A., Grace R. C. Behavioral momentum and the law of effect. Behav Brain Sci. 2000 Feb;23(1):73–130. doi: 10.1017/s0140525x00002405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Nevin J. A., Tota M. E., Torquato R. D., Shull R. L. Alternative reinforcement increases resistance to change: Pavlovian or operant contingencies? J Exp Anal Behav. 1990 May;53(3):359–379. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.53-359. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Pear J. J., Rector B. L. Constituents of response rates. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Nov;32(3):341–362. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.32-341. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Rachlin H., Baum W. M. Effects of alternative reinforcement: does the source matter? J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Sep;18(2):231–241. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.18-231. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Shull R. L., Gaynor S. T., Grimes J. A. Response rate viewed as engagement bouts: effects of relative reinforcement and schedule type. J Exp Anal Behav. 2001 May;75(3):247–274. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2001.75-247. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Tolkamp BJ, Allcroft DJ, Austin EJ, Nielsen BL, Kyriazakis I., I Satiety splits feeding behaviour into bouts . J Theor Biol. 1998 Sep 21;194(2):235–250. doi: 10.1006/jtbi.1998.0759. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

RESOURCES