Extinction

The following is a short write up on the topic of extinction. As extinction is part of the intervention procedure that I used with Fusilli on my project for ANS 6002, I thought it an important topic to include in the portfolio.

             Extinction is a method by which unacceptable behaviors can eventually be extinguished.  Cooper, Heron and Heward (2007) define operant extinction as “discontinuing of a reinforcement of a previously reinforced behavior,” also noting that this procedure will produce a decrease in the frequency of the behavior to the point of pre-reinforcement rates and/or complete cessation.   Extinction is not only difficult to achieve under certain circumstances, it is also not a quick process.  In fact, the process involved in extinction will create what are called “extinction bursts” when the procedure is initiated.  This is actually an increase in the behavior.  Eventually, this behavior will peak, then decline.  But the behavior can also undergo a spontaneous recovery (Cooper, et al., 2007) at a point later in the process.  This will be short lived if the procedure remains in effect.

            Short term, as one can see, the extinction procedure would not be a timely way of dealing with an unwanted behavior.  Not only does the behavior tend to increase initially, but the behavior will continue for some time.  As such, if the behavior is one which is dangerous to the subject or to others, or if it is destructive in any way, this is not a procedure that would be recommended.  It is also not recommended for behaviors that are imitated by others.

            As extinction can force a spontaneous recovery, efforts are often frustrated.   A 2009 study by Urcelay, Wheeler, and Miller concluded that extinction procedures, when spaced further apart, will have the effect of eliminating this spontaneous recovery.  This of course, lengthens the time of the trials, as would increasing the number of trials, which Cooper, et al. (2007) suggest will make the procedure more effective.   The length of time before success can be reached may be a drawback for some, but with appropriate and consistent use, this method can be quite successful.

            Obviously, the factors of time, patience, and consistency are important in implementing extinction.  Additionally, one factor that may be of great concern is that when extinction is implemented by the abrupt removal of a reinforcer, other unreinforced and adverse behaviors can occur, most notably, aggression.  Such was the case in Azrin, Hutchinson, and Hake’s 1966 study of pigeons.  In trying to exterminate a pecking behavior via extinction, the pigeons in this experiment experienced a resulting aggression.  The pigeons in their experiment had been conditioned to provide a pecking behavior with a food reinforcer. However, once the behavior was put under an extinction procedure, the pigeons exhibited aggression.

             It is important that a practitioner be prepared for all ramifications of this procedure and make a deliberate choice as to whether this is type of behavior modification procedure is an appropriate method for eliminating aversive behavior in the subject.  Extinction should never be used when the behavior is likely to be imitated by others.  Extreme behaviors, as previously mentioned, should not be considered for this procedure, particularly when safety and property damage is involved.  And lastly, extinction is not recommended as a stand-alone procedure, but is best when used in cooperation with other procedures (Cooper, et al, 2007).

             Long term, however, extinction can be successful, but is most successful when used in combination with another type of conditioning.   A prime example of this would be found in the results of the 1953 study provided by Solomon, Kamin and Wynne.  They concluded that a combination of “reality-testing and punishment-for-responding procedures” worked best in providing extinction for the unwanted canine behavior of avoidance.                 

            If the behavior is appropriate for extinction procedures, the practitioner will need to follow certain guidelines for success.  These guidelines outlined by Cooper, et al. (2007) include withholding all reinforcers that are supporting the aversive behavior, being consistent, and providing instructions for the subject.  Additionally, including all people involved with the subject in the procedure will provide a better outcome as will increasing the number of extinction trials.  Guarding against unintentional outcomes such as aggression and extinction of other behaviors and being prepared to maintain the decreased behavior that results from extinction are also key.  Finally, and probably most significantly, the practitioner needs to know when this procedure is not appropriate (Cooper, et al., 2007).  

Resources:

Azrin, N. H., Hutchinson, R. R., & Hake, D. F. (1966). Extinction-induced aggression. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 9(3), 191.

Cooper, J., Heron, T., and Heward, W.  (2007). Applied Behavior Analysis, 2nd Ed., Upper Saddle River, Pearson Education, Inc.

Solomon, R. L., Kamin, L. J., & Wynne, L. C. (1953). Traumatic avoidance learning: the outcomes of several extinction procedures with dogs. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48(2), 291.

Urcelay, G. P., Wheeler, D. S., & Miller, R. R. (2009). Spacing extinction trials alleviates renewal and spontaneous recovery. Learning & behavior, 37(1), 60-73.