JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2015, 48, 765–780 NUMBER 4 (WINTER)

SERIAL ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE TRAINING AS INTERVENTION

FOR TARGET RESPONSE RESURGENCE
JOSEPH M. LAMBERT
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY

SARAH E. BLOOM AND ANDREW L. SAMAHA

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA

AND

ELIZABETH DAYTON AND ANDREW M. RODEWALD

UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY

Failure to reinforce appropriate behavior could result in resurgence of previously extinguished

problem behavior and degradation of previously effective treatments such as differential
reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA). We analyzed arbitrary responses (i.e., switch
flipping) exhibited by 3 adults with developmental disabilities to compare the effect of a traditional
DRA intervention against the effect of a serial DRA intervention on the magnitude of target
response resurgence using a 2-component multiple schedule. The target response served as an
analogue to problem behavior, and alternative responses served as analogues to socially appropriate
alternative responses. In all cases, the percentage of total responding allocated toward target
response resurgence was less in the serial DRA component than in the traditional DRA component.
Furthermore, we observed both reversion and recency for 2 of 3 subjects. Our data provide
preliminary evidence suggesting that serial DRA may produce more durable and desirable
outcomes than traditional DRA.
Key words: extinction, maintenance, resurgence, translational research

Differential reinforcement of alternative Fisher, Sullivan, Acquisto, & LeBlanc, 1998;

behavior (DRA) is a behavior-reduction strategy
in which caregivers provide individuals with
access to the problem behavior’s functional
reinforcer contingent on socially appropriate
alternative responses. Although DRA has shown
mixed results when used without extinction
(e.g., Horner & Day, 1991; Shirley, Iwata,
Kahng, Mazaleski, & Lerman, 1997; Worsdell,
Iwata, Hanley, Thompson, & Kahng, 2000), it is
most often used with extinction (e.g., Hagopian,
Elizabeth Dayton is now at Melmark. Andrew Rodewald
is now at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. We thank
Tim Slocum for the comments that he provided during this
project.
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Sarah E. Bloom, Department of Child and
Family Studies, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
33612 (e-mail: sarahbloom@usf.edu).
doi: 10.1002/jaba.253
Kelley, Lerman, & Van Camp, 2002; Rooker,
Jessel, Kurtz, & Hagopian, 2013; Tiger, Hanley,
& Bruzek, 2008).
Despite its potential to eliminate problem
behavior when implemented as programmed,
some evidence exists to demonstrate that poor
procedural fidelity is a threat to the efficacy of
DRA with extinction (St. Peter Pipkin, Vollmer,
& Sloman, 2010). Although failing to place
problem behavior on extinction appears to be
more detrimental to the success of the inter-
vention than failing to reinforce alternative
responses (e.g., St. Peter Pipkin et al., 2010),
alternative response reinforcement still plays a
role in the effectiveness of DRA with extinction.
For example, continuing to reinforce alter-
native responses during maintenance stages of
the intervention can mitigate the adverse effects

765
766 JOSEPH M. LAMBERT et al.
of extinction fidelity errors (Shirley et al., 1997;
Vollmer, Roane, Ringdahl, & Marcus, 1999).
Conversely, failing to reinforce alternative
responses (or reinforcing them on too lean a
schedule) while continuing to place problem
behavior on extinction can result in resurgence
of problem behavior (Volkert, Lerman, Call, &
Trosclair-Lasserre, 2009; Wacker et al., 2013).
Resurgence is a form of relapse in which a
previously extinguished response recovers after
an alternative response is placed on extinction
(Leitenberg, Rawson, & Mulick, 1975; Rawson,
Leitenberg, Mulick, & Lefebvre, 1977).
Response resurgence is influenced by
various history effects. For instance, responses
with longer histories of reinforcement
(Bruzek, Thompson, & Peters, 2009; da Silva,
Maxwell, & Lattal, 2008; Doughty, Cash,
Finch, Holloway, & Wallington, 2010) or
responses that occur in contexts in which
differentially high rates of reinforcement have
been delivered (Podlesnik & Shahan, 2009,
2010) appear to resurge with greater magnitude
than responses with shorter histories of reinforce-
ment, responses emitted in contexts paired with
relatively lower rates of reinforcement, or both
(see Shahan & Sweeney, 2011, for a discussion).
Conversely, prolonged (Sweeney & Shahan,
2013) or multiple (Cleland, Foster, & Temple,
2000) exposures to extinction can decrease the
magnitude of target response resurgence.
Interestingly, even as responses in a response
class emerge in a hierarchical order during
behavioral escalations (Fritz, Iwata, Hammond,
& Bloom, 2013; Harding et al., 2001; Langdon,
Carr, & Owen-DeSchryver, 2008; Najdowski,
Wallace, Ellsworth, MacAleese, & Cleveland,
2008; Smith & Churchill, 2002; see also Borrero
& Borrero, 2008; Lalli, Mace, Wohn, & Livezey,
1995; Magee & Ellis, 2000; Richman, Wacker,
Asmus, Casey, & Andelman, 1999), previously
extinguished responses also resurge during these
same escalations (Lieving, Hagopian, Long, &
O’Connor, 2004). Although little research has
been conducted on the variables that influence
the order and magnitude of the resurgence of
multiple previously extinguished responses,
there is some evidence to demonstrate that
behavior taught first (a primacy effect) and last
(a recency effect) in serial training programs tend
to resurge with greater magnitude than behavior
taught in the middle of such programs
(cf. Lieving & Lattal, 2003; Mechner & Jones,
2011; Reed & Morgan, 2006). Furthermore,
Reed and Morgan (2006) cited an unpublished
study in which a serial training program yielded
“reversion,” or the resurgence of responses in the
reverse order in which they had been trained
(although Reed and Morgan reported that their
subjects did not demonstrate reversion).
If it is possible to program serial DRA in such a
way that reliably produces both recency and
reversion of previously eliminated responses,
then the technique could have a number of
important implications for applied contexts in
which socially significant human behavior (e.g.,
appropriate communication and aggression) are
frequently targeted. For instance, because prob-
lem behavior and appropriate behavior often
belong to the same response class (Harding et al.,
2009; Lalli et al., 1995; Winborn, Wacker,
Richman, Asmus, & Geier, 2002; Winborn-
Kemmerer, Ringdahl, Wacker, & Kitsukawa,
2009; Winborn-Kemmerer et al., 2010), it may
be possible to program an intervention involving
serial DRA to ensure that a variety of socially
appropriate responses resurge before or in
relatively greater magnitude than problem
behavior when an initial response is ineffective.
If so, care providers who inadvertently ignore
one form of appropriate communication may be
given additional opportunities to reinforce other
forms of appropriate communication before
problem behavior resurges. This approach could
be conceptualized as an inoculation against
lapses in treatment fidelity.
Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate
whether increasing the size of a response class via
a serial training program would make DRA
with extinction a more durable intervention
 SERIAL ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE TRAINING
during lapses in procedural fidelity in which
reinforcement was withheld. Specifically, we
evaluated whether our intervention could (a)
decrease the percentage of total responding
allocated toward target response resurgence
when reinforcement was withheld, (b) decrease
the magnitude of target response resurgence
when reinforcement was withheld, and (c)
evaluate whether a serial training program would
produce reversion, primacy, or recency when
reinforcement was withheld.
METHOD
Subjects
Three subjects who had been diagnosed with a
developmental disability participated in this
experiment. Mary was a 53-year-old woman
who could speak in full sentences, would
independently recruit attention, and attended a
sheltered workshop on weekdays. Jenny was a
59-year-old woman who spoke in one- to three-
word utterances, attended a sheltered workshop
on weekdays, and worked part time (with
assistance) at a local store. Andrea was a
32-year-old woman who occasionally spoke in
one- to three-word utterances and who also
attended a sheltered workshop on weekdays.
Each subject lived in a different home of a
residential service provider for adults with
developmental and intellectual disabilities.
Response Measurement
Response rates on five topographically differ-
ent devices (i.e., toggle light switch, rocker light
switch, slide light switch, cord switch, and
personal alarm button) were the dependent
variables. We arbitrarily designated one switch
as the target response and all other switches as
alternative responses (A1, B1, B2, or B3). We
varied switch designation across subjects.
That is, if we designated a specific switch as
Alternative Response A1 for one subject, we may
have designated the same switch as Alternative
Response B3 for another subject. Because
767
Andrea did not consistently emit the required
response for two of the original switches
independently (i.e., toggle light switch and
personal alarm button; see failed responses in
Figure 1), she responded on two switches that
were not used with Mary or Jenny (i.e., a
different toggle light switch and a different
button). We scored a response any time a subject
picked up a device from the table, performed the
action that would be required to produce a
functional consequence (e.g., turn on a light),
and then put it back on the table. We scored a
reinforcer delivery every time a therapist gave a
subject a high-preference edible item.
Reliability
A second trained (using training procedures
outlined by Dempsey, Iwata, Fritz, & Rolider,
2012) observer collected reliability data through-
out the study. We calculated reliability scores by
dividing session components into 10-s intervals
for each active variable, calculating a proportion
of agreement, dividing the sum of these
proportions by the total number of intervals,
and converting the result to a percentage.
Reliability for Mary averaged 93% (range,
79% to 100%) and was collected during 47%
of her session components. Reliability for Jenny
averaged 94% (range, 80% to 100%) and was
calculated for 42% of her session components.
Reliability for Andrea averaged 95% (range, 82%
to 100%) and was calculated for 47% of her
session components. If primary and reliability
data collectors produced low reliability scores
(i.e., below 80%), both were suspended from
data collection until an author reviewed all
operational definitions with them. This occurred
once during the first session scored by a new
observer. After the review, that observer’s data
were always in at least 80% agreement with other
data collectors.
Session Protocol
Each session consisted of two components.
One component served as the control, and one
768 JOSEPH M. LAMBERT et al.

Figure 1. Effects of reinforcement, elimination, and resurgence phases on target and alternative responding of each
subject. Responding in the control component is shown in the left panels, and responding in the test component is shown in
the right panels. Data paths labeled “failed” in the bottom right panel depict responding on two devices for which consistent
independence could not be established.

component served as the test. In the control
component, we placed the target response on
extinction and reinforced a single alternative
response (analogous to traditional DRA with
extinction). In the test component, we placed the
target response on extinction and reinforced each
of three separate alternative responses in sequen-
tial order (analogous to serial DRA with
extinction). We conducted each component in
a separate room to enhance discrimination across
components. Before initiating a component, we
placed a small folding table and two chairs at the
center of the relevant room. During each
component, the therapist sat in one chair and
the subject sat in the other. We counterbalanced
component order across sessions and days.
 SERIAL ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE TRAINING
For Mary and Jenny, each component lasted
5 min and was separated by (approximately) a
2-min intercomponent (transition) interval.
During target response training (early in the
reinforcement phase), Andrea frequently stood
up and left the experimental environment before
a component ended. Her data showed that she
stayed seated for approximately 3 min before
leaving. To accommodate Andrea’s preference for
time spent in each component, we changed her
component duration from 5 min to 3 min.
Reinforcement phase. Before initiating a ses-
sion component, we placed a single device (i.e.,
the target response) at the center of the table (the
device was the same in both components) and
delivered a contingency review or presession
forced exposure (e.g., “when you do this . . . you
get [high-preference edible item]). The preferred
item had been identified via a paired-stimulus
preference assessment (Fisher et al., 1992).
During each component, the subject was free
to manipulate the device at any time. However, if
more than 30 s ever elapsed without a response,
the therapist prompted her to make a response.
All responses (prompted or independent) were
reinforced on a fixed-ratio (FR) 1 schedule.
We continued to prompt subjects to emit
target responses until they demonstrated
independence (i.e., no prompted responding)
across both components for a single session.
After their first demonstration of independence,
subjects stayed in this phase for a minimum of
10 additional sessions (but may have stayed
longer depending on their tier of the multiple
baseline).
Elimination phase. During this phase, we
placed target responding on extinction in both
control and test components and reinforced
alternative responses on an FR 1 schedule. We
taught subjects to emit alternative responses in
the same fashion as we taught them to emit the
target response. That is, we provided them with a
forced exposure to the active contingency before
each component and then prompted them to
emit the reinforced response following any 30-s
769
period in which they did not do so independ-
ently. We continued prompting subjects until
they demonstrated independence (i.e., emitted
the reinforced response without a prompt at least
once every 30 s) in the relevant component for a
single session.
In the control component, we trained subjects
to emit a single alternative response (A1). In the
test component, we trained subjects to emit three
separate alternative responses (B1, B2, and B3)
in sequential order. That is, we trained subjects
to emit B1 while at the same time placing the
target response on extinction. After subjects’ first
demonstration of independence with B1, we
ceased to provide contingency reviews and
prompts and reinforced B1 for an additional
five sessions. Then, we placed B1 on extinction
(while keeping the target response on extinction)
and trained subjects to emit B2. After subjects’
first demonstration of independence with B2, we
ceased to provide contingency reviews and
prompts and reinforced B2 for an additional
five sessions. Finally, we placed B2 on extinction
(while the target response and B1 were kept on
extinction) and trained subjects to emit B3. After
subjects’ first demonstration of independence
with B3, we ceased to provide contingency
reviews and prompts and reinforced B3 for an
additional five sessions.
Devices associated with untrained responses
were never available. However, after they had
been trained, devices were never again removed.
For example, during the reinforcement phase,
only the device required to emit the target
response was available in both components.
However, by the end of the elimination phase,
the devices for the target response and A1 were
available in the control component and the
devices for the target response, B1, B2, and B3
were available in the test component. We did
this to simulate increases in response class size
that may occur in applied settings when
alternative responses are trained during FCT
but were not available in clients’ repertoires
before training.
770 JOSEPH M. LAMBERT et al.
Resurgence phase. In this phase, we placed all
responses on extinction. Devices for the target
response and A1 were available in the control
component, and devices for the target response
and B1, B2, and B3 were available in the test
component. This phase lasted for five sessions
for Mary and Jenny and 14 sessions for Andrea.
Andrea required additional extinction sessions
because we did not observe a meaningful
decrease in the most recently reinforced
responses (A1 in control and B3 in test) during
any of the first five sessions of this phase.
RESULTS
Table 1 summarizes the total number of
reinforcers earned by each subject in each
component as well as the average rate of
reinforcement earned (per minute) in each
component. The table also summarizes the
average rate of responding (per minute) during
the last five sessions in which each response was
reinforced.
Figure 1 displays the data from the reinforce-
ment, elimination, and resurgence phases for all
three subjects. Data from the control components
are shown in left panels, and data from the test
components are shown in right panels. DRA with
extinction suppressed target responding in both
control and test components for all subjects.
During Mary’s resurgence phase, target
response recovery was greatest during Session
Total and Average Rate of Reinforcement Delivered to Each Subject in Each Context (Component) and Average Rate
of Responding Observed During the Final Five Sessions in Which Each Response Was Reinforced
Participant Total reinforcement (average)
Mary (control) 1,078 (7.2)
Mary (test) 1,092 (7.3)
Jenny (control) 1,833 (9.2)
Jenny (test) 1,720 (8.6)
Andrea (control) 672 (2.6)
Andrea (test) 693 (2.7)
33 of the control component (21 responses;
51.9% of average baseline responding) and was
greatest during Sessions 32 and 34 of the test
component (1 response; 2.6% of average
baseline responding). During Jenny’s resurgence
phase, target response recovery was greatest
during Session 41 of the control component
(1 response; 1.8% of average baseline respond-
ing) and did not occur during the test
component. Finally, during Andrea’s resurgence
phase, target response recovery was greatest
during Session 89 of the control component
(13 responses; 117.6% of average baseline
responding) and was greatest during Sessions
88 and 91 of the test component (1 response;
7.5% of average baseline responding).
Figure 2 shows the cumulative number of
responses that occurred in control and test
components for all subjects during the resurgence
phase. White and black segments are stacked.
White segments represent alternative responses,
and black segments represent target responses.
For all three subjects, fewer target responses
occurred in test segments than in control segments
during the resurgence test. Target responding also
occupied a smaller percentage of total responding
in test segments than in control segments. In
addition, for two of three subjects, more total
responding (i.e., the sum of all responses) occurred
in test segments than in control segments. These
results suggest that larger response classes, a serial
training program, or some combination of the two
Table 1
Average rate of responding during final five sessions
Target A1 B1 B2 B3
8.1 8
7.9 5.6 7.4 7.7
11.2 13.2
10 10.7 12.2 10.8
3.4 4.1
4 4.4 2.4 3.3
 SERIAL ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE TRAINING
Figure 2. Bars represent the total number of responses
emitted during the resurgence phase. White and black
segments are stacked. White segments represent all
alternative responses and black segments represent target
responses. Numbers above bars represent the exact number
of target responses emitted and the percentage of total
responding accounted for by the target response.
may have increased total response output while
simultaneously suppressing the magnitude of
target response recovery.
Figures 3 through 8 show a second-by-second
analysis of responding during the resurgence
phases of each subject. These data were used to
determine the order in which previously extin-
guished responses were emitted. Top panels show
a timeline of responding, with a summary of the
total number of each response emitted in
parentheses to the right. Bottom panels show
the same data depicted in a cumulative record.
Data from the test segments of this analysis show
that a reversion, or the recovery of previously
extinguished responses in the reverse order in
which they were reinforced and extinguished,
occurred for two of three subjects (Jenny and
Andrea).
Figure 9 shows each recovering response as a
percentage of all relapses that occurred during
the resurgence phase for each subject. For all
three subjects, the first reinforced and extin-
guished response (the target response) occupied
the smallest percentage of total relapse. For two
of three subjects (Andrea and Jenny), the last
previously reinforced and extinguished response
771
(B2) occupied the largest percentage of total
relapse, demonstrating a recency effect.
DISCUSSION
In our study, teaching individuals multiple
alternative responses using a serial training
program increased the total amount of respond-
ing and decreased the percentage of total
responding allocated to the resurgence of target
behavior when reinforcement was no longer
available. In addition, it decreased the absolute
amount as well as the relative amount of target
response resurgence (when considered as a
percentage of baseline responding). Further-
more, when the functional reinforcer was no
longer available, at least one alternative response
resurged in the test condition before the target
response. The intervention was followed by
a reversion of response resurgence for two of
three subjects. Finally, withholding reinforce-
ment produced a recency effect for two of three
subjects. From a clinical standpoint, this out-
come is desirable because alternative responses
are often the most recently reinforced responses
in the response class before lapses in procedural
fidelity occur.
These results are promising and indicate that
there may be several reasons to teach clients
multiple alternative responses during the train-
ing stages of DRA. First, doing so may decrease
the relative amount of problem behavior
resurgence when functional reinforcers are
temporarily withheld. In addition, doing so
could increase the probability that appropriate
alternative responses resurge before problem
behavior. This outcome may decrease the
probability of the resurgence of problem
behavior altogether, because one alternative
response may recruit reinforcement more effec-
tively than another, thus inoculating individuals
against lapses in treatment fidelity by giving
them the means to continue to recruit functional
reinforcers appropriately before they revert to
problem behavior. Should a care provider
772 JOSEPH M. LAMBERT et al.

Figure 3. Second-by-second analysis of responding in control component of Mary’s resurgence test. The graph in the
top panel depicts a timeline of responding (across sessions). Numbers in parentheses to the right of the timeline depict the
sum total of each response emitted. The graph in the bottom panel shows the same data depicted in a cumulative record.

reinforce one response in a class at any point
during extinction, subject response patterns
would likely mirror those seen during the
elimination phase of this experiment (i.e.,
near-exclusive response allocation toward the
reinforced response) and problem behavior may
not occur.
Despite the fact that more target response
resurgence was observed in control conditions
that reflect traditional DRA-with-extinction
procedures, another promising result of this
study was how quickly target response resurgence
was eliminated in both control and test
components for all of our subjects. Our results
support the assertion made by St. Peter Pipkin
et al. (2010) that fidelity to target response
extinction is more vital to the effectiveness of an
intervention than the reinforcement of alter-
native responses. Had we reinforced target
behavior during the resurgence phase, one might
assume that target responding would have
returned to baseline rates of responding (as was
 SERIAL ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE TRAINING 773

Figure 4. Second-by-second analysis of responding in test components of Mary’s resurgence test. The graph in the top
panel depicts a timeline of responding (across sessions). Numbers in parentheses to the right of the timeline depict the sum
total of each response emitted. The graph in the bottom panel shows the same data depicted in a cumulative record.

the case each time a new response was trained
and reinforced during the elimination phase).
Because we conducted each component (con-
trol and test) of our multiple schedule in a
different room, we could not assume that the
recovery of target responding during the resur-
gence test was resurgence without first ruling out
renewal. Renewal occurs when a previously
extinguished response reemerges as a function
of a context change (Welker & McAuley, 1978).
For example, if a client’s response has a history of
reinforcement in Context A and we place it on
extinction in Context B, when we return our
client to Context A and then observe a recovery of
the extinguished response when no other variables
in Context A have changed, the recovery can be
characterized as renewal and is a function of
transitioning between contexts (cf. Bouton,
Todd, Vurbic, & Winterbauer, 2011; Nakajima,
Tanaka, Urushihara, & Imada, 2000).
To parse the effects of context change
(renewal) from the effects of alternative response
774 JOSEPH M. LAMBERT et al.

Figure 5. Second-by-second analysis of responding in control components of Jenny’s resurgence test. The graph in the
top panel depicts a timeline of responding (across sessions). Numbers in parentheses to the right of the timeline depict the
sum total of each response emitted. The graph in the bottom panel shows the same data depicted in a cumulative record.

extinction (resurgence), we only identified target
response recovery as resurgence if the highest rate
of responding during the resurgence phase was
higher than the highest rate of responding during
any of the last five sessions of the elimination
phase. We selected the final five sessions of the
elimination phase to account for each subject’s
learning history. That is, we wanted to account
for the effect that context change had on
response recovery while we also accounted for
decreases in that effect attributable to experience
with those context changes across time. The
results of our resurgence analysis are shown in
Table 2. According to our criteria, the target
response resurged in the control component for
all three subjects and resurged in the test
component for two of the three subjects (Mary
and Andrea).
A few procedural limitations should be noted.
First, we reinforced only one alternative response
at any given time during the serial training
program. Thus, if a previously trained alternative
 SERIAL ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE TRAINING 775

Figure 6. Second-by-second analysis of responding in test components of Jenny’s resurgence test. The graph in the top
panel depicts a timeline of responding (across sessions). Numbers in parentheses to the right of the timeline depict the sum
total of each response emitted. The graph in the bottom panel shows the same data depicted in a cumulative record.

response occurred during a subsequent response’s
baseline, that response contacted extinction
before the resurgence phase. An analogue to
this is not likely to be found in most clinical
settings in which care providers are typically
taught to reinforce all topographies of appro-
priate behavior whenever they occur. In addi-
tion, our study did not systematically evaluate
how long an alternative response needs to be
reinforced before it can be placed on extinction,
or how long it can remain on extinction, in order
to produce the outcomes found in this study.
Furthermore, because the control component
consisted of a single alternative response and the
test component consisted of three alternative
responses, it is impossible to establish whether
the observed effects were a function of the serial
training program, a larger response class, or some
combination of the two. Because a serial DRA
program calls for the establishment and sub-
sequent extinction of multiple appropriate
alternative responses in populations in which
776 JOSEPH M. LAMBERT et al.

Figure 7. Second-by-second analysis of responding in control components of Andrea’s resurgence test. The graph in the
top panel depicts a timeline of responding (across sessions). Numbers in parentheses to the right of the timeline depict the
sum total of each response emitted. The graph in the bottom panel shows the same data depicted in a cumulative record.

appropriate behavior is often limited, it is target response in one component influenced

important to verify the necessity of the serial
training portion of the intervention before it is
implemented with applied populations. Future
researchers may wish to conduct a component
analysis of this intervention.
Another limitation of our study was that we
used the same target response in both control and
test components for each of our subjects. Thus, it
was possible that contingencies contacted by the
target responding in the alternative component.
It should also be noted that the rate of occurrence
of Alternative Responses A1 and B3 (i.e., the
responses placed on extinction for the first
time during the resurgence phase) increased
substantially during the final two sessions of
Jenny’s resurgence phase. Although these
responses decreased considerably during the first
three sessions of extinction, their recovery during
 SERIAL ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE TRAINING 777

Figure 8. Second-by-second analysis of responding in test components of Andrea’s resurgence test. The graph in the top
panel depicts a timeline of responding (across sessions). Numbers in parentheses to the right of the timeline depict the sum
total of each response emitted. The graph in the bottom panel shows the same data depicted in a cumulative record.

the final two sessions is peculiar. Because we did
not conduct additional extinction sessions for
Jenny (like we did for Andrea), we cannot say
with certainty that control of these responses did
not transfer to unprogrammed consequences and
that they truly contacted extinction during this
phase. However, considering the efficiency with
which the programmed reinforcer increased all
other responses when targeted and the rapidity
in which these responses decreased when the
contingency shifted to a new response, it is
possible that the observed increase in the rate of
responding for Responses A1 and B3 (the first
time in the experiment in which reinforcement
was completely withheld) was an extinction
burst (for a discussion of extinction bursts, see
Lerman, Iwata, & Wallace, 1999).
Finally, we did not include an unreinforced
control response in either component of our
evaluation. Thus, it is not possible for us to
778 JOSEPH M. LAMBERT et al.

individuals to emit more than one alternative

Figure 9. The percentage of total response recovery
occupied by responses reinforced and extinguished first,
second, and last before the resurgence test as a percentage of
all relapses that occurred during the resurgence test for each
subject.
determine whether the recovery of previously
extinguished responses was resurgence or
whether it was the function of some other
behavioral operation evoked by extinction, such
as extinction-induced variability (Neuringer,
Kornell, & Olufs, 2001).
Notwithstanding these limitations, our results
provide preliminary evidence to suggest that it
may be possible to decrease relative response
allocation to problem behavior when appropriate
behavior contacts extinction by teaching
Table 2
Resurgence Analysis
response in a serial DRA program. However, we
obtained these results by targeting arbitrary
responses over which we could control reinforce-
ment histories. It is difficult to predict the
generality of these results if the responses had
more extensive histories of reinforcement, as
with problem behavior treatment situations.
Mace and Critchfield (2010) noted that
translational research has historically served
three functions. First, it has been a method to
replicate in humans the effects originally
produced with nonhumans. Second, it has
been used to develop laboratory models of
specific human problems to facilitate their
resolution. Finally, it has been used to study
uniquely human behavior. Given our method,
goals, and results, this study is translational
because it accomplishes the first two functions
noted by Mace and Critchfield. That is, we
replicated response resurgence (an effect that was
originally produced in nonhumans) with hu-
mans. In addition, we demonstrated the use of a
low-stakes model for evaluating the effect of an
intervention whose results have treatment
implications. If our results can be replicated in
applied contexts, then serial DRA may be one
way to empower individuals with disabilities who
receive treatment for problem behavior to recruit
reinforcement even when initial appropriate
attempts are not reinforced.

Highest rate of responding

in a single session REFERENCES
Last five Resurgence Borrero, C. S. W., & Borrero, J. C. (2008). Descriptive and
Subject (elimination) test Resurgence? experimental analyses of potential precursors to
problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
Mary (control) 0 4.2 yes
Mary (test) 0 0.2 yes 41, 83–96. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2008.41-83
Jenny (control) 0 0.2 yes Bouton, M. E., Todd, T. P., Vurbic, D., & Winterbauer,
Jenny (test) 0 0 no N. E. (2011). Renewal after the extinction of free
Andrea (control) 0 0.6 yes operant behavior. Learning & Behavior, 39, 57–67. doi:
Andrea (test) 0 4 yes 10.3758/s13420-011-0018-6
Bruzek, J. L., Thompson, R. H., & Peters, L. C. (2009).
Note. Response recovery was identified as resurgence if Resurgence of infant caregiving responses. Journal of
the highest rate of responding in the component of the the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 92, 327–343. doi:
resurgence test was higher than the highest rate of 10.1901/jeab.2009-92-327
responding in the same component during the final five Cleland, B. S., Foster, T. M., & Temple, W. (2000).
sessions of the elimination condition. Resurgence: The role of extinction. Behavioural
 SERIAL ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE TRAINING
Processes, 52, 117–129. doi: 10.1016/S0376-6357(00)
00131-5
da Silva, S. P., Maxwell, M. E., & Lattal, K. A. (2008).
Concurrent resurgence and behavioral history. Journal
of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 90, 313–331.
doi: 10.1901/jeab.2008.90-313
Dempsey, C. M., Iwata, B. A., Fritz, J. N., &
Rolider, N. U. (2012). Observer training revisited:
A comparison of in vivo and video instruction.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45, 827–832.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2012.45-827
Doughty, A. H., Cash, J. D., Finch, E. A., Holloway, C., &
Wallington, L. K. (2010). Effects of training history on
resurgence in humans. Behavioural Processes, 83,
340–343. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2009.12.001
Fisher, W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L. P.,
Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison of
two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons
with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 491–498. doi:
10.1901/jaba.1992.25-491
Fritz, J. N., Iwata, B. A., Hammond, J. L., & Bloom, S. E.
(2013). Experimental analysis of precursors to severe
problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
46, 101–129. doi: 10.1002/jaba.27
Hagopian, L. P., Fisher, W. W., Sullivan, M. T., Acquisto, J.,
& LeBlanc, L. A. (1998). Effectiveness of functional
communication training with and without extinction
and punishment: A summary of 21 inpatient cases.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 211–235. doi:
10.1901/jaba.1998.31-211
Harding, J. W., Wacker, D. P., Berg, W. K., Barretto, A.,
Winborn, L., & Gardner, A. (2001). Analysis of
response class hierarchies with attention-maintained
problem behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 34, 61–64. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-61
Harding, J. W., Wacker, D. P., Berg, W. K., Winborn-
Kemmerer, L., Lee, J. F., & Ibrahimovic, M. (2009).
Analysis of multiple manding topographies during
functional communication training. Education and
Treatment of Children, 32, 21–36. doi: 10.1353/
etc.0.0045
Horner, R. H., & Day, H. M. (1991). The effects of
response efficiency on functionally equivalent com-
peting behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
24, 719–732. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1991.24-719
Kelley, M. E., Lerman, D. C., & Van Camp, C. M. (2002).
The effects of competing reinforcement schedules on
the acquisition of functional communication. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 59–63. doi: 10.1901/
jaba.2002.35-59
Lalli, J. S., Mace, F. C., Wohn, T., & Livezey, K. (1995).
Identification and modification of a response-class
hierarchy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28,
551–559. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1995.28-551
Langdon, N. A., Carr, E. G., & Owen-DeSchryver, J. S.
(2008). Functional analysis of precursors for serious
problem behavior and related intervention. Behavior
779
Modification, 32, 804–827. doi: 10.1177/
0145445508317943
Leitenberg, H., Rawson, R. A., & Mulick, J. A. (1975).
Extinction and reinforcement of alternative behavior.
Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 88,
640–652. doi: 10.1037/h0076418
Lerman, D. C., Iwata, B. A., & Wallace, M. D. (1999). Side
effects of extinction: Prevalence of bursting and
aggression during the treatment of self-injurious
behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32,
1–8. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1999.32-1
Lieving, G. A., Hagopian, L. P., Long, E. S., & O’Connor, J.
(2004). Response-class hierarchies and resurgence of
severe problem behavior. The Psychological Record, 54,
621–634.
Lieving, G. A., & Lattal, K. A. (2003). Recency,
repeatability, and reinforcer retrenchment: An exper-
imental analysis of resurgence. Journal of the Exper-
imental Analysis of Behavior, 80, 217–233. doi:
10.1901/jeab.2003.80-217
Mace, F. C., & Critchfield, T. S. (2010). Translational
research in behavior analysis: Historical traditions and
imperative for the future. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 93, 293–312. doi: 10.1901/
jeab.2010.93-293
Magee, S. K., & Ellis, J. (2000). Extinction effects during
the assessment of multiple problem behaviors. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 313–316. doi:
10.1901/jaba.2000.33-313
Mechner, F., & Jones, L. (2011). Effects of sequential aspects
of learning history. Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis,
37, 109–138. doi: 10.5514/rmac.v37.i1.24688
Najdowski, A. C., Wallace, M. D., Ellsworth, C. L.,
MacAleese, A. N., & Cleveland, J. M. (2008).
Functional analyses and treatment of precursor
behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41,
97–105. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2008.41-97
Nakajima, S., Tanaka, S., Urushihara, K., & Imada, H.
(2000). Renewal of extinguished lever-press responses
upon return to the training context. Learning and
Motivation, 31, 416–431. doi: 10.1006/lmot.2000.1064
Neuringer, A., Kornell, N., & Olufs, M. (2001). Stability
and variability in extinction. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 27, 79–94. doi:
10.1037//0097-7403.27.1.79
Podlesnik, C. A., & Shahan, T. A. (2009). Behavioral
momentum and relapse of extinguished operant
responding. Learning & Behavior, 37, 357–364. doi:
10.3758/LB.37.4.357
Podlesnik, C. A., & Shahan, T. A. (2010). Extinction,
relapse, and behavioral momentum. Behavioural Proc-
esses, 84, 400–411. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2010.02.001
Rawson, R. A., Leitenberg, H., Mulick, J. A., & Lefebvre,
M. F. (1977). Recovery of extinction responding in rats
following discontinuation of reinforcement of alter-
native behavior: A test of two explanations. Animal
Learning & Behavior, 5, 415–420. doi: 10.3758/
BF03209589
780 JOSEPH M. LAMBERT et al.
Reed, P., & Morgan, T. A. (2006). Resurgence of response
sequences during extinction in rats shows a primacy
effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,
86, 307–315. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2006.20-05
Richman, D. M., Wacker, D. P., Asmus, J. M., Casey, S. D.,
& Andelman, M. (1999). Further analysis of problem
behavior in response class hierarchies. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 269–283. doi:
10.1901/jaba.1999.32-269
Rooker, G. W., Jessel, J., Kurtz, P. F., & Hagopian, L. P.
(2013). Functional communication training with and
without alternative reinforcement and punishment: An
analysis of 58 applications. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 46, 708–722. doi: 10.1002/jaba.76
Shahan, T. A., & Sweeney, M. M. (2011). A model of
resurgence based on behavioral momentum theory.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 95,
91–108. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2011.95-91
Shirley, M. J., Iwata, B. A., Kahng, S., Mazaleski, J. L., &
Lerman, D. C. (1997). Does functional communica-
tion training compete with ongoing contingencies of
reinforcement? An analysis during response acquisition
and maintenance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
30, 93–104. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-93
Smith, R. G., & Churchill, R. M. (2002). Identification of
environmental determinants of behavior disorders
through functional analysis of precursor behaviors.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 125–136.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2002.35-125
St. Peter Pipkin, C., Vollmer, T. R., & Sloman, K. N.
(2010). Effects of treatment integrity failures during
differential reinforcement of alternative behavior: A
translational model. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 43, 47–70. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2010.43-47
Sweeney, M. M., & Shahan, T. A. (2013). Behavioral
momentum and resurgence: Effects of time in
extinction and repeated resurgence tests. Learning &
Behavior, 41, 414–424. doi: 10.3758/s13420-013-
0116-8
Tiger, J. H., Hanley, G. P., & Bruzek, J. (2008). Functional
communication training: A review and practical guide.
Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1, 16–23.
Volkert, V. M., Lerman, D. C., Call, N. A., & Trosclair-
Lasserre, N. (2009). An evaluation of resurgence
during treatment with functional communication
training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42,
145–160. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-145
Vollmer, T. R., Roane, H. S., Ringdahl, J. E., & Marcus,
B. A. (1999). Evaluating treatment challenges with
differential reinforcement of alternative behavior.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 9–23.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.1999.32-9
Wacker, D. P., Harding, J. W., Morgan, T. A., Berg, W. K.,
Schieltz, K. M., Lee, J. F., & Padilla, Y. C. (2013). An
evaluation of resurgence during functional communi-
cation training. The Psychological Record, 63, 3–20. doi:
10.11133/j.tpr.2013.63.1.001
Welker, R. L., & McAuley, K. (1978). Reductions in
resistance to extinction and spontaneous recovery as
a function of changes in transportational and
contextual stimuli. Animal Learning & Behavior, 6,
451–457. doi: 10.3758/BF03209643
Winborn, L., Wacker, D. P., Richman, D. M., Asmus, J., &
Geier, D. (2002). Assessment of mand selection for
functional communication training packages.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 295–298.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2002.35-295
Winborn-Kemmerer, L., Ringdahl, J. E., Wacker, D. P., &
Kitsukawa, K. (2009). A demonstration of individual
preference for novel mands during functional commu-
nication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
42, 185–189. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-185
Winborn-Kemmerer, L., Wacker, D. P., Harding, J.,
Boelter, E., Berg, W., & Lee, J. (2010). Analysis of
mand selection across different stimulus conditions.
Education and Treatment of Children, 33, 49–64.
doi: 10.1353/etc.0.0086
Worsdell, A. S., Iwata, B. A., Hanley, G. P., Thompson,
R. H., & Kahng, S. (2000). Effects of continuous and
intermittent reinforcement for problem behavior
during functional communication training. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 167–179. doi: 10.1901/
jaba.2000.33-167
Received May 16, 2014
Final acceptance May 26, 2015
Action Editor, Joel Ringdahl