A Comparison of Extinction Procedures for Responding Maintained by Random-Cycle Avoidance Schedules

Under avoidance schedules, a response is reinforced when it prevents or postpones the presentation of an aversive stimulus. Sidman avoidance schedules are defined by consistent intervals between presentations of the aversive stimulus and the response. Although these schedules are useful for the experimental analysis of behavior, they differ from the random avoidance schedules that are unavoidable in daily life. There is current clinical and conceptual interest regarding generative effects of extinction, and a dearth of research on these effects following avoidance, especially with human subjects and random-cycle avoidance schedules. Therefore, research evaluating extinction of responding previously maintained by avoidance is a steppingstone for clinical and experimental innovations. We compared the acquisition and persistence of responding maintained by a free-operant random-cycle avoidance schedule during two extinction conditions with four college students. During baseline, touching a circle prevented money loss according to a random-cycle 5-s avoidance schedule. The same schedule was used during two alternating components signaled by background colors. During extinction in one component, no money was lost (no-loss). During the other component, money was lost according to a random-time 5-s schedule (unavoidable-loss). Overall, no-loss and unavoidable-loss extinction extinguished responding maintained by random-cycle avoidance schedules similarly. If continued presentation of the stimulus is ethical, unavoidable loss tended to work more rapidly and reliably and was less likely to produce an extinction burst or high rates of variable responding.