Using revealed operants to study the structure and properties of human operant behavior

A Comprehensive Systematic Review of Procedures and Analyses Used in Basic and Preclinical Studies of Resurgence, 1970-2020

Resurgence is the return of a previously reinforced response as conditions worsen for an alternative response, such as the introduction of extinction, reductions in reinforcement, or punishment. As a procedure, resurgence has been used to model behavioral treatments and understand behavioral processes contributing both to relapse of problem behavior and flexibility during problem-solving. Identifying existing procedural and analytic methods arranged in basic/preclinical research could be used by basic and preclinical researchers to develop novel approaches to study resurgence, whereas translational and clinical researchers could identify potential approaches to combating relapse during behavioral interventions. Despite the study of resurgence for over half a century, there have been no systematic reviews of the basic/preclinical research on resurgence. To characterize the procedural and analytic methods used in basic/preclinical research on resurgence, we performed a systematic review consistent with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). We identified 120 articles consisting of 200 experiments that presented novel empirical research, examined operant behavior, and included standard elements of a resurgence procedure. We reported prevalence and trends in over 60 categories, including participant characteristics (e.g., species, sample size, disability), designs (e.g., single subject, group), procedural characteristics (e.g., responses, reinforcer types, control conditions), criteria defining resurgence (e.g., single test, multiple tests, relative to control), and analytic strategies (e.g., inferential statistics, quantitative analysis, visual inspection). We make some recommendations for future basic, preclinical, and clinical research based on our findings of this expanding literature.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40614-022-00361-y.

An investigation of resurgence of reinforced behavioral variability in humans

The present study examined resurgence of reinforced variability in college students, who completed a 3-phase computer-based variability task. In the first phase, baseline, points were delivered for drawing rectangles that sufficiently differed from previous rectangles in terms of a target dimension (size or location, counterbalanced) but were sufficiently similar in terms of the alternative dimension. In the second phase, alternative, points were only delivered for rectangles that were sufficiently different in terms of the alternative dimension, but repetitive in terms of the target dimension. In the third phase, extinction, no points were delivered. In baseline, participants made rectangles that were highly varied in terms of the target dimension and less varied in terms of the alternative dimension, and vice versa in the alternative phase. During extinction, levels of variability increased for the target dimension, providing evidence for resurgence of reinforced variability of a specific dimension of behavior. However, levels of variability also remained high for the alternative dimension, indicating that extinction-induced response variability may also have impacted the results. Although future research is needed to explore other explanations, the results of this study replicate prior research with pigeons and provide some support for the notion of variability as an operant.

A Critical Review of the Support for Variability as an Operant Dimension

There is abundant evidence that behavioral variability is more predominant when reinforcement is contingent on it than when it is not, and the interpretation of direct reinforcement of variability suggested by Page and Neuringer, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 11(3), 429-452 (1985) has been widely accepted. Even so, trying to identify the underlying mechanisms in the emergence of stochastic-like variability in a variability contingency is intricate. There are several challenges to characterizing variability as directly reinforced, most notably because reinforcement traditionally has been found to produce repetitive responding, but also because directly reinforced variability does not always relate to independent variables the same way as more commonly studied repetitive responding does. The challenging findings in variability experiments are discussed, along with alternative hypotheses on how variability contingencies may engender the high variability that they undeniably do. We suggest that the typical increase in behavioral variability that is often demonstrated when reinforcement is contingent on it may be better explained in terms of a dynamic interaction of reinforcement and extinction working on several specific responses rather than as directly reinforced.

Resurgence of target responding does not exceed increases in inactive responding in a forced-choice alternative reinforcement procedure in humans

Resurgence following removal of alternative reinforcement has been studied in non-human animals, children with developmental disabilities, and typically functioning adults. Adult human laboratory studies have included responses without a controlled history of reinforcement, included only two response options, or involved extensive training. Arbitrary responses allow for control over history of reinforcement. Including an inactive response never associated with reinforcement allows the conclusion that resurgence exceeds extinction-induced variability. Although procedures with extensive training produce reliable resurgence, a brief procedure with the same experimental control would allow more efficient examination of resurgence in adult humans. We tested the acceptability of a brief, single-session, three-alternative forced-choice procedure as a model of resurgence in undergraduates. Selecting a shape was the target response (reinforced in Phase I), selecting another shape was the alternative response (reinforced in Phase II), and selecting a third shape was never reinforced. Despite manipulating number of trials and probability of reinforcement, resurgence of the target response did not consistently exceed increases in the inactive response. Our findings reiterate the importance of an inactive control response and call for reexamination of resurgence studies using only two response options. We discuss potential approaches to generate an acceptable, brief human laboratory resurgence procedure.

An Analog Study of First Language Dominance and Interference over Second Language

The purpose of this study was to design a model for "first language" dominance over "second language" performance and the interference of one language over the other. Two sets of equivalence relations showing a common element (i.e., the reference) were established under different contextual conditions. One set ("first language") was over trained relative to the other ("second language"). Dominance of the "first language," as demonstrated in relations involving the common element, was determined by examining performances in the absence of contextual stimuli. Interference by one language over the other was modeled by examining the degree to which resurgence of "first language" and "second language" relations would occur in extinction, following a period of exposure to inconsistent test trials. In addition, both selection-based (i.e., copy text) and topography-based (i.e., intraverbal) equivalence were examined in these areas. The results demonstrated that the development of an analog for a bilingual repertoire, the domination of the "first language" over the "second language" and the interference of one language over the other, were established.

Resurgence of behavior during extinction depends on previous rate of response

In two experiments, food-deprived rat subjects leverpressed for food in three successive training phases. In the first phase of both experiments, rats were exposed to a multiple schedule, one component of which produced a high rate of response, and the other of which produced a lower rate of response (multiple random ratio [RR], random interval [RI] in Experiment 1, and multiple differential reinforcement of high rate, differential reinforcement of low rate in Experiment 2). Rats were then transferred to a multiple fixed interval (FI; 60-sec, 60-sec) schedule, until the effects of the first phase on response rate were no longer apparent and their response rates did not differ from those of rats responding on a multiple FI 60-sec, FI 60-sec schedule without previously experiencing a multiple RR, RI schedule. During the third stage oftraining, all rats were placed into extinction. During extinction, rates of responding were higher in the component previously associated with the high rate of responding in Phase 1, and they were lower in the component previously associated with low rates of responding in Phase 1. These results suggest that resurgence effects, like other history effects, are controlled by previous rates of responding.

Resurgence of response sequences during extinction in rats shows a primacy effect

Rats were trained to emit a series of three-response sequences to a criterion (i.e., more than 80% of all emitted sequences correct over five successive sessions). Each rat was trained on a series of different, three-response sequences. After the final three-response sequence was acquired, two extinction tests were administered, and the three-response sequences that re-emerged during these extinction tests were noted. Resurgence effects during extinction were observed; that is, the previously trained sequences were emitted. These resurgence effects followed an orderly pattern, which involved a primacy effect. The rats initially emitted the immediately previously trained response, but then started to emit the response sequence they first were trained to emit. Thus, resurgence behavior during extinction can be an orderly function of previous training history. These results replicate those previously obtained with human subjects.

Operant variability: evidence, functions, and theory

Although responses are sometimes easy to predict, at other times responding seems highly variable, unpredictable, or even random. The inability to predict is generally attributed to ignorance of controlling variables, but this article is a review of research showing that the highest levels of behavioral variability may result from identifiable reinforcers contingent on such variability. That is, variability is an operant. Discriminative stimuli and reinforcers control it, resulting in low or high variability, depending on the contingencies. Schedule-of-reinforcement effects are orderly, and choosing to vary or repeat is lawfully governed by relative reinforcement frequencies. The operant nature of variability has important implications. For example, learning, exploring, creating, and problem solving may partly depend on it. Abnormal levels of variability, including those found in psychopathologies such as autism, depression, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, may be modified through reinforcement. Operant variability may also help to explain some of the unique attributes of voluntary action.

Common processes may contribute to extinction and habituation

Psychologists routinely attribute the characteristics of conditioned behavior to complicated cognitive processes. For example, many of the characteristics of behavior undergoing extinction have been attributed to retrieval from memory. The authors argue that these characteristics may result from the simpler process of habituation. In particular, conditioned responding may decrease during extinction partially because habituation occurs to the stimuli that control responding when those stimuli are presented repeatedly or for a prolonged time (e.g., the experimental context, the conditioned stimulus in classical conditioning). This idea is parsimonious, has face validity, and evokes only processes that are well established by other evidence. In addition, behavior undergoing extinction shows 12 of the fundamental properties of behavior undergoing habituation. However, this model probably cannot provide a complete theory of extinction. It provides no obvious explanation for some of the other characteristics of extinguished behavior.