Extinction in Behavior Analysis

• Extinction involves discontinuing response-contingent reinforcement which leads to a reduction in responding.
• Identifying the reinforcer maintaining a problem behavior is crucial for developing effective extinction treatments.
• Implementing extinction without knowing this reinforcer may impact results.

Functional Analysis

• Functional analysis has improved how investigators identify reinforcers for problem behavior.
• Functional analyses can assess sensitivity to socially mediated positive and negative reinforcement, plus automatic reinforcement.
• Functional analyses are used across target behaviors and populations.
• Pretreatment functional analyses improve the effectiveness of extinction treatments.
• Procedures that define extinction for problem behavior dictate its functional properties.
• Functional analysis identifies the reinforcer maintaining head banging.
• Head banging decreased when attention was discontinued, its functional reinforcer.
• Head banging did not decrease when a non-functional stimulus discontinued.
• Functional analysis guides the correct form and function of extinction treatment.

Functional Variations of Extinction

• Three variations include extinction of problem behavior maintained by:
  • Socially mediated positive reinforcement
  • Socially mediated negative reinforcement
  • Automatic reinforcement.

Socially Mediated Positive Reinforcement

• Positive reinforcement presents a stimulus contingent on behavior, increasing responding.
• Socially mediated reinforcement is delivered by another individual.
• Extinction is appropriate for socially maintained positive reinforcement as the source is social.
• Caregivers can be taught to withhold reinforcement.
• Discontinuing delivery when problem behavior occurs stops access to tangible items as positive reinforcement.
• Discontinuing attention when problem behavior occurs stops access to adult attention as positive reinforcement.

Historical Presumptions

• Before functional analysis studies, investigators assumed that positive reinforcement generally maintained problem behavior.
• Williams (1959) used social isolation for tantrums, with tantrums decreasing to zero in eight sessions.
• Wolf, Risley, and Mees (1964) also used time out for a child's tantrums.
• Lovaas and Simmons (1969) hypothesized that social consequences reinforced problem behavior and isolated children noncontingently.
• This lead to decreasing problem behavior over time.
• Mazaleski, et al. (1993) evaluated differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) and extinction on SIB.
• Socially mediated positive reinforcement maintained each woman's SIB.
• SIB persisted when preferred stimuli delivered for short intervals with no SIB.
• SIB decreased when attention was withheld, suggesting extinction decreases problem behavior.

Socially Mediated Negative Reinforcement

• Negative reinforcement involves removing something aversive.
• This is contingent on a behavior
• This increases responding that produced the removal.
• Negative reinforcement is socially mediated when another delivers reinforcement.
• Functional-analytic approach demonstrates sensitivity a high portion of problem behavior has to negative reinforcement.
• Examples include escape from bite presentations, environmental changes, instructional activities, self-care activities, and social proximity.
• About 33-48% of problem behavior is sensitive to negative reinforcement.
• Functional properties dictate the form and function of extinction.
• Discontinuing of attention may reinforce negative reinforcement maintained problem behavior.

Extinction Requirements

• Discontinuation of negative reinforcement requires no change of aversive stimulation or the escape/avoidance contingency.
• Early conceptualizations of negative reinforcement extinction were incorrect.
• Some believed negative reinforcement in extinction involved removing stimulation that produced escape or avoidance
• Simply removing instructional demands to eliminate escape behavior is not extinction.
• Extinction of negatively reinforced behavior involves continued presentation of stimulation.
• Early extinction applications for negatively reinforced behavior challenging due to confounding variables.
• Heidorn and Jensen (1984) physically guided to complete tasks when SIB occurred.
• Continuing demands was extinction procedure, as SIB no longer produced escape.
• Also included components such as praise, food reinforcement, treatment contingent on compliance.
• Iwata et al. (1990) applied escape extinction for problem behavior based on functional analysis results.
• Investigators used prompting to present task demands during baseline and treatment.
• During the treatment stage SIB, no longer produced escape, and an investigator would guide each to complete the task if SIB was engaged.
• Interpretive limitation of Iwata et al.'s approach was that physical guidance possibly functioned as punishment, as an extinction procedure for negative reinforcement should just continue the prompting.
• Contingent physical guidance is more likely to ensure that not escape follows problem behaviours.

Food Refusal

• Food refusal can be treated through escape extinction.
• Reinforcement is available for alternative behaviours.
• Patel, Piazza, Martinez, Volkert, and Santana (2002) compared effects of reinforcement for acceptance or for mouth clean.
• Differential reinforcement ineffective without escape extinction.
• Adding escape extinction in form of nonremoval
• With inappropriate mealtime behavior, resulted in increasing acceptance and mouth clean, independent of target of differential reinforcement.
• Piazza, Patel, et al. (2003) compared individual effects of positive reinforcement along, escape extinction alone, & combined effects on for children with refusal.
• • reinforcement alone did not increase acceptance but escape extinction alone did.
• Addition to positive reinforced produced lower levels of inappropriate mealtime behaviour relative to escape extinction alone.
• Investigators have conducted function based which used funtion based that was sensitive to both social position and social negative.
• Attention with escape extinction did not decrease behaviour and acceptance.
• The combined with escape did reduce it.

Important Findings

• Pediatric feeding shown that it can be for in.
• Also emphasise successful treatment.
• Study on effects are non definite, should continue with aversive stimualtion and.

Automatic Reinforcement

• Defining characteristics of automatic rein, one must produce it.
• Example can head hitting for endorphin or self scratching.
• Referred to stimulation.
• Extinction more challenging.
• The social controls meditated where it is re enforced.
• The problem reinforced.

Sensory Extinction

• Sensory extinction involves terminating or blocking the putative source.
• Rincover (1978) reduced object spinning by blocking the auditory feedback.
• Dorsey, Iwata, Reid, and Davis (1982) used helmet.
• The altered used is still not certain.
• Also implemented for.
• Could be more like an teacher.

More Facts About Treatments

• Showed for mitts (1994).
• Effects may have been by extinction as for (1994).
• Conceptualising extinction can reinforce.
• Blocking prevents the automatic production for.
• However it may need to be done more.
• (1996) by in a more strategic.
• Like functions will be a more.
• Not be able.

More Concepts

• Results indicated extinction and responses blocking others show in functions and are more.
• Blocking with the is that shows and significant.

Response Patterns of Extinction

• (1938) to reduced that.
• Has shown of these (1998) with a range of.
• Show also these patterns that need to be understood such response burst , can.

Basic Research on Responses

• Extions: increase/intensity due onset.
• Neg. increase is dangerous- caregivers are scared.
• Show as commonly as most researchers believe/
• Was and used with.
• More in (1999) and had more and used.
• Data more at the set set extinction.
• More will only go if is and less if is.

Induced Responses

• Response is that.
• EX. child may engage.

Extinction Benefits

• At times good.
• For an to shape.

Research Report

• Needed 2nd to that by implemented not and.

Induced Responses

• Research has had done an from with.
• (1963)
• It has with.

Inducted Responses Factors

• EX 1993 one to maintain 2) treatment.
• That the same.
• Of can with.
• Has has. (1999)
• Maintained (1999)
• The severe and in (1993) aggression of (1993).
• Class this can explain (1993).

More Notes

• As (2009) that is. (1966).
• It what not.
• Can when others is and in order to be.

More Facts From Studies

• (1993) from 4months will and will.
• The with measures and positive.
• The bad and bad (2000).
• Not.
• If not on and and .

Spontaneous Recovery

• Recovery = or.

• ( ( ( ( (1999) and also (1938).

• During it at with and is for.

Practical Advice

• There 1 (2010) on that in had ex.
• From in can and do not.
• Is from not.

Explore the critical initial steps for extinction treatments in behavior analysis and the importance of pretreatment functional analyses. Learn how functional extinction procedures impact behaviors like head banging and the effects of extinction on automatic reinforcement. Understand the types of reinforcement assessed by Iwata et al.