Background

Extinction is defined as the discontinuation of reinforcement for a behavior that was previously reinforced, which results in a decrease in a measurable dimension of behavior (e.g., frequency, rate, duration). Treatments for challenging behavior are often more effective when they include extinction. However, treatment may not include extinction when the behavior is dangerous or harmful because of the risk associated with increasing the rate or intensity of the behavior. This is known as an extinction burst, a common secondary effect of implementing extinction. It is defined as a temporary increase in behavior occurring after the start of extinction, as compared to the baseline response rate during reinforcement. While definitions vary within the research, once defined, the prevalence of extinction bursts can be estimated. However, no method currently exists to control their occurrence. 

Responding (or the occurrence of the behavior) during extinction is likely influenced by the reinforcement parameters established during baseline. However, the effects can be relative meaning that they provide various types and amounts of response support which is likely to change over time.

Simply, not all reinforcers are equal. This has led to the consideration of value, factors that influence the degree to which particular outcomes support specified outputs of behavior. Because they are likely a product of baseline reinforcement parameters, the consideration of value is essential to understanding extinction bursts.

Therefore, consideration of the Consumer Demand Theory may be beneficial. Demand, in this context, refers to the amount of a particular commodity that an individual consumes at a fixed price. If demand is inelastic, consumers will pay more (or exert more effort) in order to maintain their previous levels of consumption (baseline), even when the price of the commodity increases. If demand becomes elastic, consumers are less likely to increase their efforts or pay more when the price increases too much. The shift from inelastic to elastic demand is important as it measures the value of the commodity and helps determine the optimal price (Pmax), the price that allows for the highest level of consumer spending. If the price of the reinforcement is below Pmax, then it undervalues the commodity because the consumer would spend more than is required to obtain it. If the price is above Pmax it is still suboptimal because at the higher price points decrease the value of the commodity to the consumer, leading them not spend as much to obtain it as they would had the item been reasonably prices.

Furthermore, demand helps measure temporary value changes at a fixed price, as extra consumption becomes less valuable when consumption aligns with demand. As this occurs, individuals are unwilling to continue to emit a response, or “pay” for the reinforcers. This can be accounted for by differentiating between antecedent events which typically increase the value of the reinforcement known as Establishing Operations (EO) (i.e., deprivation) , from those which deplete the value, known as Abolishing Operations (AO) (i.e., satiation). The closer consumption gets to demand, the lower the value of additional consumption becomes (abolished). In contrast, the value of additional consumption increases (established) when there is little to no consumption.

There has not been consideration of Pmax and demand within current published treatments of extinction bursts. Nonetheless, bursts are likely caused by the existing reinforcement conditions, and the value can change depending on factors like unit price and satiation/deprivation further evidencing that the consumer demand theory could offer a valuable framework for formulating and testing hypotheses related to bursts. It is possible that:

• bursts are a result of baseline schedules of reinforcement in relation to Pmax. Meaning that if the prices at baseline are “cheaper” than Pmax, then during extinction, consumers are more likely to produce output values that approximate Pmax exhibiting an extinction burst. Similarly, bursts may less likely if baseline prices are higher, or more “expensive” as the output has already been diminished.
• bursts are a product of the timing of which extinction was implemented. Specifically, if consumption approached the level of demand prior to beginning extinction then responding (engaging in the behavior) may occur less than if there was little or no consumption of the reinforcer prior to implementing extinction.
• price in relation to Pmax and timing interact

Purpose:

The purpose of this project was to identify the mechanisms accountable for extinction bursts in hope to enable strategic advancements towards finding treatments for challenging behavior. More specifically, this study aimed to determine how the interaction between relative price and the timing of extinction affected responding, revealing control mechanisms at play.

The purpose of this webpage is to easily disseminate the knowledge and findings produced as a result of this study in hopes to foster conversation and growth regarding the approach to treating challenging behavior.

Hypotheses:

We hypothesized that matching baseline reinforcement parameters to individual measures of value (demand and Pmax) would directly impact the occurance bursting and the extent (i.e., magnitude, persistence) of responding during extinction.

More specifically, we predicted that baseline reinforcement parameters would affect bursts in one of three different ways:

1. Only unit price, in relation to Pmax, would affect the magnitude of peak- responding
2. Only the timing of extinction, in terms of how close baseline consumption is to the individual demand threshold, would influence peak-response magnitude
3. An interaction between unit price relative to Pmax and proximity of consumption to demand influences peak-response magnitude.