Cited by 24Behavioral and Psychological StudiesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Effects of differential rates of alternative reinforcement on resurgence of human behavior

Smith, Brooke M., Smith, Gregory S., Shahan, Timothy A., Madden, Gregory J., Twohig, Michael P.·2017·Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

Abstract

Despite the success of exposure‐based psychotherapies in anxiety treatment, relapse remains problematic. Resurgence, the return of previously eliminated behavior following the elimination of an alternative source of reinforcement, is a promising model of operant relapse. Nonhuman resurgence research has shown that higher rates of alternative reinforcement result in faster, more comprehensive suppression of target behavior, but also in greater resurgence when alternative reinforcement is eliminated. This study investigated rich and lean rates of alternative reinforcement on response suppression and resurgence in typically developing humans. In Phase 1, three groups (Rich, n = 18; Lean, n = 18; Control, n = 10) acquired the target response. In Phase 2, target responding was extinguished and alternative reinforcement delivered on RI 1 s, RI 3 s, and extinction schedules, respectively. Resurgence was assessed during Phase 3 under extinction conditions for all groups. Target responding was suppressed most thoroughly in Rich and partially in Lean. Target responding resurged in the Rich and Lean groups, but not in the Control group. Between groups, resurgence was more pronounced in the Rich group than the Lean and Control groups. Clinical implications of these findings, including care on the part of clinicians when identifying alternative sources of reinforcement, are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jeab.241

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, B. M., Smith, G. S., Shahan, T. A., Madden, G. J., & Twohig, M. P.
Affiliations
  • Utah State University (US)
  • Chrysalis (US)
Corresponding author
  • Smith, Brooke M.
  • Twohig, Michael P.
Venue
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-01
Volume
107
Issue
1
Pages
191-202
ISSN
  • 0022-5002 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-3711
OpenAlex
W2574179111
Cited by
24
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
4.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - USU (Utah State University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
resurgence, alternative reinforcement, extinction, response suppression, anxiety treatment, extinction blocking, human behavior
MeSH terms
Recidivism, Adolescent, Adult, Conditioning, Operant, Extinction, Psychological, Female, Humans, Male, Reinforcement, Psychology, Reinforcement Schedule, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review