The Effects Of Continuous And Partial Reinforcement On Reinstatement Induced Relapse

8. Pavlov found that if he allowed his animals to rest for several hours following the extinction of a behavior, the conditioned response would spontaneously appear again upon re-presentation of the conditioned stimulus – although in a somewhat weaker form. This is called:

Organisms will be inclined to comply to the desired response if they are rewarded for doing so. If an organism is punished for a certain behavior they will not risk the same punishment recurring.

Within the concept of operant conditioning, there are various simple schedules of reinforcement that are a part of our daily routine. Operant conditioning is a category of learning that invokes consequences, either negative or positive, as a way to increase or decrease behaviors (Powel, Honey & Symbaluk, 2013, p. 264) Schedules of reinforcement, such as fixed ratio, variable interval, fixed interval and variable ratio, are used as ways to strengthened or weaken those wanted or unwanted behaviors (Powel, Honey & Symbaluk, 2013, pp. 271-279). When applying these fundamental concepts to real world scenarios, it is crucial to first acknowledge which behavior is to be strengthened or weakened and then proceed with the conditioning.

Keeping in mind that identifying the variables that maintain problem behavior (reinforcement) is more affective for treatment selection (Mevers, Fisher, Kelley, and Fredrick, 2014), one common treatment for problem behavior is Noncontingent reinforcement. (Carr, Severston, & Lepper, 2009). NCR is used in combination with extinction for problem behavior and involves dense schedules of reinforcement that are decreased gradually (as cited in; Phillips, Iannaccone, Rooker, and Hagopian, 2017). The problem behavior may be replaced by an alternative behavior already existing in the individual repertoire, during NCR (Virues-Ortega, Iwata, Fahmie, and Harper, 2013). The American Psychological Association’s Division 12 criteria for empirically supported treatments established NCR and extinctions as an effective treatment for problem behavior (Chambless & Hollon, 1998). When the schedules of NCR are dense there is a reduction of the Motivating operation (MO) for problem behavior (as cited in; Phillips, Iannaccone, Rooker, and Hagopian, 2017). NCR is more effective when the same reinforcement maintaining the behavior (functional reinforcement) is used in the contingency instead of an alternative reinforcement (as cited in Phillips,iannaccone, Rooker, & Hagopian, 2017). Thus, the same reinforcement responsible for maintaining problem behavior should be used in an NCR contingency (Vollmer et al. 1993). In a study by Phillips, Iannaccone, Rooker, & Hagopian (2017), Non-contingent

Background (key works): Reinforcement theory is rooted in theory of operant conditioning based primarily on the work of the American behavior scientist B.F. Skinner (Borkowski, 2011). In contrast to Ivan Pavlov’ respondent conditioning controlled by

For my relapse prevention research paper, I wanted to choose a substance/individual combination which would be convoluted, devoid of a simple or straightforward treatment plan. Due to my interest in healthcare, I decided to address an increasingly prevalent issue in the field, substance dependence to clinically-prescribed opiates. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), the number of opiate prescriptions written in the United States has skyrocketed over the past two decades. In 2013, the United States Department of Health and Human Services reported that there were an estimated 1.9 million illicit opiate users in the United States who were either abusing or dependent prescription pain

A major issue when treating alcoholism is the likelihood of relapse. A lack of social support may contribute to an increased likelihood of relapse, while maintaining positive social support can decrease this risk. One study discussed the possibility of social interaction influencing relapse behavior in the prairie vole. This study focused on the alcohol deprivation effect (ADE), where animals that had been previously exposed to ethanol show increased consumption after a period of abstinence, modeling relapse behavior commonly seen in addiction. The aim of the study was first to observe whether prairie voles, like mice and rats in previous experiments, could display an ADE and second, to determine whether this effect could be influenced by social

The cognitive behavioral model of relapse is known for being the first approach in regards to evaluating the effectiveness of particular behavior changes when it comes to decreasing the behaviors which may trigger relapse. It is also a specific model for relapse prevention that identifies high risk situations. In effort to prevent the progression from lapse to relapse in alcohol dependent individuals, Marlatt and his colleges began the first research study on the cognitive behavioral model. The model was developed based on identified triggers for alcohol lapses following behavioral intervention, which was found in a series of studies conducted. Overall, lapses and relapses were decreased according to participants from initial studies, proving the model somewhat effective.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the extinction experiment is to gradually decline the response rate with which rat number four presses the lever of the Operant Chamber. Extinction is the schedule of no reinforcement. It works by eliminating the reinforcers or dispensation of food when the rat presses the lever, and the rate of response of the animal declines. In addition, after several days, the rat was placed in the Operant Chamber again for a spontaneous recovery experiment. The purpose for the spontaneous recovery experiment consists of the increase in the rate of responding of the previously extinguished behavior (lever pressing for food). This happens because an animal responds more frequently at the begining of a new session than at the end of the old, although no reinforcement is given during the experiment.

further elucidate our understanding of the overlaps between the two and also give one insight into implications for therapy options.

I chose to investigate intermittent schedule of reinforcement because I predict a relationship between intermittent schedules of reinforcement and why individuals stay in abusive relationships. As I was exploring Sniffy, the virtual rat, I have realized that we are able to punish Sniffy for pressing the bar. After realizing that, I ran three quick trials as a part of an operant conditioning experiment. At first, I put Sniffy on a continuous schedule and conditioned him to press the bar every time he wanted food. Secondly, I put him on an extinction schedule, and punished him for each bar press. In time, Sniffy demonstrated a gradual decrease in the association between sound and food. Before extinction could fully occur, lastly, I put Sniffy

As mentioned earlier this theory only looks at one aspects, which is operant conditioning. Avoidance and escape are reinforced when there is less aversive stimulus. Another distinction between both theories is that the one-process theory shows that that less of something could be a reinforcer. In the two-process theory totally neglected the idea that no reinforcer could be reinforcing. In the same way as the two-process theory states that the subject will continue a behavior to avoid another. The one-process theory believes that as well, but it has an idea on how to deviate that behavior. To reduce the escaping behavior that behavior will have to be impacted. What it meant by this is that the subject would not be able to perform the escaping behavior, and that would reduce that behavior. Once the subject learns that the CR response is no longer there they will slowly start not to perform the escaping behavior as often. Not all of today’s researchers full agree with the one-process theory. Some researchers are still making the case to support the two-process theory, so it is hard to tell which theory explains the ideas

Two of the different theories that can account for behavioral contrast include behavioral reallocation hypothesis and reinforcer habituation/satiation hypothesis. Behavioral reallocation hypothesis understands that the subject will respond slower to the changing component while being able to respond faster with renewed energy to the consistent component. This is

Behaviourists regard behaviour has a response and stimulus which is determined by the environment one lives in. With this reductionist idea, it is therefore easy for behaviourists to control experiments. Behaviourists carry out experiments with control over variables, precise measurements objectivity and observability, resulting in very reliable results. However, some critics may argue that behaviour is studied under artificial conditions which do not match real life environments, resulting in low ecological validity. Furthermore, another strength of this approach is that all three of its theories, classical conditioning, operant conditioning and social learning theory have succeeded when applied to its studies. For instance, classical conditioning is when new behaviours maybe acquired through association between an environmental stimulus and a neutral stimulus. An example of this is Watson’s little Albert experiment (1920) where the neutral stimulus (white rat) and

One limitation of Classical Conditioning is that when a behaviour stops being performed, it is very easy for these connections to be lost. This is known an extinction. In the example of Pavlov’s dogs, if the conditioned stimulus, the bell, is presented often enough without the unconditioned stimulus, the meat, the