Psychological Bulletin Copyright 1988 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1988. VolT 103, No. 1,44-56 0033-2909/88/J00.75

Behavioral Momentum and the Partial Reinforcement Effect

John A. Nevin
University of New Hampshire

Free-operant behavior is more resistant to change when the rate of reinforcement is high than when
it is low. The usual partial reinforcement extinction effect, demonstrating greater resistance to extinc-
tion after intermittent than after continuous reinforcement, seems to contradict this generalization.
However, most free-operant extinction data are reported as response totals, which confound the
initial levels of responding and the rate at which responding decreases over the course of extinction.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

A reanalysis shows that after extended training, the slope of the extinction curve is shallower after
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

continuous reinforcement than after intermittent reinforcement, suggesting greater rather than less
resistance to change. These results, which hold for both independent-groups and within-subject com-
parisons, support the general finding that resistance to change of free-operant behavior is a positive
function of the rate of reinforcement. This generalization does not, however, hold for discrete-trial
performance. I discuss some consequences of these analyses for applications of behavioral research
results.

A series of experiments conducted over the past dozen years
supports a simple generalization: The greater the rate of rein-
forcement for a free-operant response, the more it resists change
(Nevin, 1974, 1979; Nevin, Mandell, & Atak, 1983; Nevin,
Mandell, & Yarensky, 1981). A standard experiment uses pi-
geons as subjects, deprived to 80% of their free-feeding weights.
After brief training to eat from the grain magazine in a conven-
tional pigeon chamber and then to peck the key, with food after
each peck, the birds are exposed to a multiple schedule of rein-
forcement in which two distinctive lights on the key signal two
different schedule components. For example, the key might be
lighted red for 1 min, during which pecks would be reinforced
at variable intervals averaging 1 min (60 reinforcers per hr), and
then green for the next 1 min, during which pecks would be
reinforced at variable intervals averaging 3 min (20 reinforcers
per hr). (Such a schedule would be denoted mult VI 1-min, VI
3-min.) Training would continue until response rates in both
components became stable—perhaps 40 daily 1-hr sessions.
Then the resistance to change of these asymptotic response
rates would be assessed by introducing a new variable uni-
formly with respect to both components, such as free food dur-
ing dark-key periods between schedule components (e.g.,
Nevin, 1974) or prefeeding in the home cage (e.g., Eckerman,
1968). Both procedures have a common result: The rate of re-
sponding changes less, relative to its baseline training level, in
the component with the higher rate of reinforcement (red, VI
1-min in this case).
[ am indebted to L. Slade for assistance with literature searches and
data analyses, to E. Fickett for help with the conduct of the study re-
ported in this article, to W. Baum and V. Benassi for many stimulating
discussions, and to two reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier
version of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John
A. Nevin, Department of Psychology, University of New Hampshire,
Durham, New Hampshire 03824.
Generality and Consistency
In addition to pigeons, rats and monkeys have served as sub-
jects in experiments of this sort, and many other procedures
for assessing resistance to change have been used: introducing
concurrent reinforcement for an alternative response, either sig-
naled (Nevin et al., 1981) or unsignaled (Pliskoff, Shull, & Gol-
lub, 1968); varying hours of deprivation (Carlton, 1961)orbody
weight (Herrnstein & Loveland, 1974); presenting stimuli sig-
naling unavoidable electric shock (Blackman, 1968; Lyon,
1963); punishing the reinforced response (Bouzas, 1978); in-
creasing response effort (Elsmore, 1971); and simply tracking
response rates through circadian changes in activity (Elsmore
&Hursh, 1982).
Whatever the assessment procedure, it must be applied
equally to the two components: For example, if punishment is
used to assess resistance to change, it must be arranged so that
experienced shock rates are the same in both components, even
when response rates differ. Prefeeding and deprivation proce-
dures are especially useful in this respect, because motivation
levels and internal stimulation are the same regardless of which
component is in effect. Also, all these procedures leave the base-
line schedule of reinforcement unchanged. Under these condi-
tions, the results are uniform and clear: Relative to their base-
line levels, the rate of responding in the component with the
higher rate of reinforcement is less affected than the rate of re-
sponding in the component with the lower rate of reinforce-
ment.
Normally, baseline response rate is higher in the component
with the higher rate of reinforcement. However, resistance to
change is independent of baseline response rates. For example,
Nevin (1974, Experiment 5) established low response rates in a
VI 1-min component and high rates in a VI 3-min component
by means of tandem interresponse-time requirements. These
rate differences are opposite to those usually obtained with
standard VI schedules. Nevertheless, resistance to change rela-
tive to baseline remained greater in the VI 1-min component.

44
 BEHAVIORAL MOMENTUM AND THE PARTIAL REINFORCEMENT EFFECT
Path, Fields, Malott, and Grossen (1983) repeated Nevin's
(1974) method of using tandem interresponse-time require-
ments to produce different response rates but arranged identi-
cal reinforcement rates in both components and found no
difference in resistance to change relative to baseline levels.
Conversely, if the training schedules establish similar response
rates despite differences in reinforcement rates, resistance to
change remains greater in the component with the higher rate
of reinforcement (e.g., Blackman, 1968;Nevinetal., 1983).
The findings of research on free-operant resistance to change
are consistent with the findings of research on schedule prefer-
ence. A standard procedure, known as concurrent chain sched-
ules, provides intermittent access to one signaled schedule for
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
responses on one of two simultaneously available choice keys
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
and intermittent access to a second schedule, signaled by a
different stimulus, for responses on the other key. In this situa-
tion, subjects uniformly prefer the schedule with the higher ob-
tained rate of reinforcement, regardless of differences in re-
sponse-reinforcer contingencies arranged by the schedules and
consequent differences in response rate (e.g., Autor, 1969;
Herrnstein, 1964; see Nevin, 1979, for review of data relevant
to resistance to change). The magnitude of the preference varies
with a number of procedural parameters, but the direction of
preference is clear. Thus, the generality of the ordinal relation
between resistance to change and reinforcement rate across di-
verse assessment procedures fits nicely with the ordering of
schedule preferences.
Measurement Considerations
The measure of resistance to change is (B0 — BX)/B0, where
B0 is baseline response rate, x is the value of the new variable
used to assess resistance to change, and Bx is the response rate
at that value. The smaller the value of this measure, the greater
is resistance to change. When this measure is plotted as a func-
tion of AT, the slope of the function characterizes resistance to
change: The shallower the slope, the greater is resistance to
change.
In many of Nevin and his associates' analyses, response rates
relative to baseline are plotted on semilogarithmic axes, for
three reasons. First, a lot of assessment operations produce low
response rates, so that floor effects could obscure slope differ-
ences; this problem is avoided by the use of logarithms, which
range to minus infinity. Second, the semilogarithmic functions
are often roughly linear, facilitating slope comparisons. Third,
the slope of a semilogarithmic function is invariant with respect
to multiplication or division, so that slopes are unaffected by
changes in baseline values. (See Nevin, Smith, & Roberts, 1987,
for further discussion of measurement issues.)
The arguments above suggest that rate of responding main-
tained under constant baseline conditions and the slope of the
function characterizing the resistance to change of a free oper-
ant are independent both at the level of measurement and func-
tionally, in experimental data. Different processes may deter-
mine these distinct aspects of behavior. For example, ratio
schedules routinely generate higher response rates than do in-
terval schedules, even when the obtained rates of reinforcement
are the same. Thus, response rates are clearly determined by
the schedule contingencies as well as by rates of reinforcement.
45
Conversely, the data reviewed above suggest that rate of rein-
forcement (but not response rate) determines resistance to
change relative to baseline.
The rate of reinforcement obtained by a free-operant re-
sponse in a signaled schedule component may affect resistance
to change either because the response is reinforced more often
(an operant, response-reinforcer relation) or because the stimu-
lus signaling that component enjoys a more favorable correla-
tion with reinforcement (a Pavlovian, stimulus-reinforcer rela-
tion). To evaluate these alternatives, Nevin (1984) maintained
key pecking with a common VI 2-min schedule in three initial
multiple-schedule components that were followed by noncon-
tingent transitions to different signaled reinforcement rates.
One was followed by a higher rate of reinforcement, the second
by the same rate, and the third by nonreinforcement. Respond-
ing was more resistant to prefeeding or extinction in the VI 2-
min component that preceded the higher rate of reinforcement
than in the VI 2-min component that preceded nonreinforce-
ment. Thus, differential stimulus-reinforcer relations in a stim-
ulus sequence affected resistance to change in initial compo-
nents in which operant, response-reinforcer relations were
equated.
Nevin et al. (1987) explored a more complex procedure that
compared response-contingent and noncontingent transitions
to components with a higher rate of food reinforcement or with
nonreinforcement. They found that contingent transitions to a
higher rate of reinforcement maintained higher response rates
in the initial component than did noncontingent transitions,
demonstrating that an upward transition in the rate of food re-
inforcement was itself a reinforcer. However, relative resistance
to extinction was unaffected by this operant contingency when
the Pavlovian, stimulus-reinforcer relations were the same.
Nevin et al. (1987) also repeated Nevin's (1984) finding that
resistance to extinction was greater in the initial component
that preceded an increase in rate of reinforcement than in the
initial component that preceded nonreinforcement when both
transitions were noncontingent. Nevin et al. (1987) therefore
suggested that maintained response rate is determined primar-
ily by operant, response-reinforcer contingencies, whereas re-
sistance to change is determined primarily by Pavlovian, stimu-
lus-reinforcer relations.
Although this distinction may apply with special force to
within-subject, multiple-schedule research with differential
stimulus-reinforcer relations arranged within sessions, it may
also apply to independent-groups research designs in which one
group obtains reinforcement at a high rate and thus experiences
a strong environment-reinforcement correlation, whereas an-
other obtains reinforcement at a low rate and thus experiences a
relatively weak environment-reinforcement correlation. With
respect to the relation between rate of reinforcement and resis-
tance to change, free-operant studies with independent groups
are in qualitative agreement with multiple-schedule studies (see
below). However, the effects of response-reinforcer and envi-
ronment-reinforcer relations have not been separated in inde-
pendent-groups research designs.
A Mechanical Metaphor
The independence of maintained response rate and resis-
tance to change, coupled with the suggestion that these aspects
 46 JOHN A. NEV1N
of behavior may depend on separate processes, led Nevin et al.
(1983) to an analogy derived from Newtonian mechanics. A
moving body has both velocity and mass, and under constant
conditions, it continues in motion at a constant velocity. When
it is acted on by an external force, its velocity changes in propor-
tion to the force and in inverse proportion to its mass. If baseline
response rate under constant conditions is considered analo-
gous to the initial velocity and a new variable, such as prefeed-
ing, is taken as the external force, the change in response rate is
inversely proportional to the behavioral analogue of mass.
Nevin et al. (1983) proposed a method for quantifying behav-
ioral mass, by analogy to the fundamental Newtonian relation
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(1)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
where v stands for velocity, F for force, and m for mass.
Rewritten in the behavioral notation above,
(Ba- a = x/m, (2)
where (B0 - BX)/B0 is the change in response rate relative to
baseline (analogous to Au) and x is the value of the variable used
to assess resistance to change (analogous to F). Because this
term is dimensionless, behavioral mass (m) must be expressed
in the same units as the assessment variable (x). But the units
of x vary from one experiment to another, according to whether
prefeeding, alternative reinforcement, punishment, or some
other procedure is used to assess resistance to change, thus pre-
cluding the possibility of a transsituational, absolute scale of
behavioral mass. This problem may be resolved by evaluating
the mass of one performance relative to another by finding a
pair of values of the new variable, xt and x2, that produce equal
changes in response rate relative to baseline for the two perfor-
mances. Then
or
(3)
That is, the ratio of the values of the assessment variable that
give equal changes in the two performances, relative to their
baselines, is equal to the ratio of the behavioral masses of those
performances. Nevin et al. (198 3) showed that when mass ratios
were measured in this way, the ratios were invariant with re-
spect to the magnitude of the new variable and were internally
consistent across three sets of reinforcement rates, thus meeting
the basic requirements of ratio-scale measurement.
In classical physics, momentum is the product of mass and
velocity. Likewise, behavioral momentum may be construed as
the product of resistance to change (mass) and baseline re-
sponse rate (velocity). Thus construed, behavioral momentum
is closely identified with the general notion of learning. A per-
formance is said to be well learned if it is executed frequently
and reliably during training and if it persists with little or no
impairment under new circumstances (high velocity and large
mass). The notion of learning would not be invoked, however,
if performance ceased altogether as soon as training ended (zero
mass), whatever its response rate during training, or if the per-
formance never occurred (zero velocity). Thus, the effectiveness
of a training program may be characterized by its effects on
behavioral momentum. For practical purposes, the goal of be-
havior modification may be seen as maximizing the momentum
of desirable behavior and minimizing the momentum of unde-
sirable behavior.
Given the necessity of measuring relative behavioral mass,
one must also measure behavioral momentum in relative terms.
Thus, if mi/m2 gives the mass ratio of two performances and
Bt/B2 gives their velocity ratio, their momentum ratio is m\B\l
m2B2. Many studies of maintained response rate in multiple
schedules have shown that
Bi/B2 = (4)
where r\ and r^ are the rates of reinforcement obtained by Bt
and B2, respectively. The parameter a reflects sensitivity of re-
sponse-rate ratios to reinforcement-rate ratios, and c reflects
inherent biases attributable to differences in the reinforcement
contingencies that produce different response rates when the
reinforcement rates are equal. (See McSweeney, Farmer, Dou-
gan, & Whipple, 1986, for a thorough quantitative review of the
literature.)
Nevin et al. (1981) and Nevin et al. (1983) reported data con-
sistent with the conjecture that mass ratios are similarly related
to relative reinforcement rates:
m\lmi = (H/^)*, (5)
where the notation is as above except that b reflects the sensitiv-
ity of mass ratios to reinforcement-rate ratios. Momentum ra-
tios are then given by the product of Equations 4 and 5:
+b
(6)
If this conjecture is correct, relative momentum depends on rel-
ative rate of reinforcement and on whatever operant or Pavlov-
ian factors determine the values of the exponents a and b and
the bias multiplier c. Many quantitative, parametric studies will
be required for evaluating Equation 6 and assessing the deter-
miners of its parameters.
Behavioral Momentum and Resistance to Extinction
This may or may not prove to be a fruitful approach to the
study of learned behavior, but before going much further, the
approach must deal with one apparent counterinstance to the
generalization that more frequent reinforcement leads to
greater resistance to change, namely, the well-known partial re-
inforcement extinction effect (PRE). As every student of intro-
ductory psychology knows (or should know?), responding is
more persistent during extinction after training with intermit-
tent reinforcement than after training with continuous rein-
forcement (CRF). Clearly, any intermittent schedule arranges a
rate of reinforcement lower than that provided by CRF. Thus,
a serious problem arises.
Resistance to extinction may in fact be a counterinstance to
the general relation between resistance to change and rate of
reinforcement—a serious counterinstance because of the theo-
retical and practical significance of persistence in the face of
nonreinforcement. There may, however, be no conflict. Extinc-
tion may give discrepant results because the schedules of rein-
forcement are no longer in effect during the assessment proce-
dure, unlike all other assessment procedures reviewed above.
 BEHAVIORAL MOMENTUM AND THE PARTIAL REINFORCEMENT EFFECT
Alternatively, the relation between reinforcement rate and resis-
tance to change (behavioral mass) may be nonmonotonic, turn-
ing down again as rate of reinforcement becomes very high and
approaches CRF. Another possibility is that the consistent out-
comes of resistance-to-change research depend on within-sub-
ject comparisons after extended training in multiple-schedule
procedures. Independent-group designs of the sort most com-
monly used in the study of the PRE may give different results.
Conversely, the PRE may depend on the use of independent-
groups designs and relatively brief training. Finally, the PRE
itself may need to be reexamined.
Is Extinction a Counterinstance?
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
In several experiments, researchers have demonstrated that
after multiple-schedule training with two intermittent sched-
ules, extinction proceeds relatively less rapidly in the presence
of the signal previously correlated with the higher rate of rein-
forcement. Gollub and Urban (1958) trained pigeons on mult
VI 3-min, VI 9-min schedules with unusually long compo-
nents— 15 and 45 min, respectively—so that the number of re-
inforcers was the same, on average, in both components. They
then discontinued food reinforcement and alternated the com-
ponent stimuli every 12.5 min until responding decreased to
near-zero levels. For all four birds, key pecking persisted longer
in the presence of the stimulus correlated with the VI 3-min
schedule. Nevin (1974, Experiment 2) repeated these results
with pigeons trained on mult VI 2-min, VI 6-min schedules
with 30-s components in both training and testing; Nevin et al.
(1983) repeated them, again with pigeons, on mult VI 28-s, VI
86-s; mult VI 86-s, VI 360-s; and mult VI 28-s, VI 360-s, with
1-min components in both training and testing. Cohen (1986)
recently confirmed these results with rats trained on mult fixed-
interval (FI) 30-s, FT 120-s schedules and on mult random-inter-
val (RI) 30-s, RI 120-s schedules, so the result is general across
species. Thus, resistance to extinction following multiple-
schedule training with intermittent reinforcement in both com-
ponents appears to conform to the general pattern that resis-
tance to change is positively related to reinforcement rate.
Is the Relation Nonmonotonic?
The extinction studies cited above used relatively infrequent
reinforcement, even in the component with the higher rate of
reinforcement, and it may be that still more frequent reinforce-
ment would lead to a reduction in resistance to change. Several
studies, with rats as subjects but with different procedures, sug-
gest that this is not the case. Carlton (1961) trained two rats on
mult CRF VI 2-min schedules and two rats on mult CRF FI
2-min schedules of food reinforcement. He then varied food
deprivation from 0 to 65 hr. There was virtually no change in
CRF responding by any of the rats, whereas there were large,
systematic variations in response rates maintained by the 2-
min interval schedules for all rats.
Carlton's (1961) result was confirmed by P. Jenkins (1978),
who used independent groups of rats trained on CRF or differ-
ent random-ratio (RR) schedules. (I consider this study in more
detail below). After training, extinguishing, and reconditioning
lever pressing to stable levels, P. Jenkins (1978) reduced food
47
deprivation from 23 hr to 1 hr. Response rates maintained by
CRF decreased substantially less than did those maintained by
RR schedules requiring an average of 10,20,30, or 40 responses
per reinforcer. Thus, CRF appears to maintain responding that
is more resistant to changes in deprivation than intermittent
reinforcement schedules, and the result is general across within-
subject, multiple-schedule procedures and group designs.
Another method for assessing resistance to change is to pro-
vide alternative reinforcement on a separate key or lever. With
pigeons and intermittent reinforcement schedules, alternative
reinforcement produces results that are entirely consistent with
those for changes in food deprivation (Nevin et al., 1981), and
the same appears to be true for rats and for schedules including
CRF. Lea and Roper (1977) arranged for rats to obtain food
according to CRF or various fixed-ratio (FR) schedules, ranging
from FR 1 (i.e., CRF) to FR 16 in one compartment of a two-
compartment chamber over successive conditions. With each
schedule, a lever in the second compartment sometimes made
food available according to an FR 8 schedule and sometimes
did not. When food was available, responding in the first com-
partment decreased least when its schedule was CRF and most
when it was FR 16. Thus, both deprivation change and alterna-
tive reinforcement procedures suggest that CRF maintains per-
formances that are more resistant to change than are those
maintained by intermittent reinforcement schedules.
Is the Relation Between Resistance to Change and
Reinforcement Rate Unique to Within-Subject Designs?
At least two studies suggest that data obtained with indepen-
dent groups may be functionally similar to those obtained
within subjects. I described the first, by P. Jenkins (1978), above
in conjunction with Carlton's (1961) within-subject results. In
the second, Church and Raymond (1967) trained separate
groups of rats on VI 12-s or VI 5-min schedules and then intro-
duced a VI 2-min schedule of punishing electric shocks. There
were substantially greater reductions, relative to baseline, in the
VI 5-min group than in the VI 12-s group. More recently, Bou-
zas (1978) trained pigeons on mult VI 1-min, VI 4-min sched-
ules and then introduced a VI 30-s schedule of punishing
shocks in both components. He observed larger relative de-
creases in response rate in the VI 4-min component. At least
with respect to deprivation and punishment, then, resistance to
change appears to be ordered similarly in independent-groups
and within-subject, multiple-schedule research designs.
Is the Standard PRE Observed Within
Subjects on Multiple Schedules?
Several experimenters have addressed this question, but the
answer is not clear. In the earliest study, Hearst (1961, Experi-
ment 2) trained four pigeons on a four-component multiple
schedule with nonreinforcement, CRF, variable-ratio (VR) 4,
and VR 10 schedules correlated with distinctive key colors.
Each component remained in effect until five reinforcers had
been obtained, except the nonreinforcement component,
which terminated after 2 min. After 17 training sessions, with
5 exposures to each component per session, Hearst conducted
3 sessions of extinction, with each component appearing 75
 48 JOHN A. NEVIN
times in all, for 30 s each time. Responses in the presence of
each color were summed for the 3 sessions and plotted against
the training schedule value to demonstrate a clear PRE: The
number of responses in extinction increased monotonically
with the size of the ratio schedule in training. Evidently, the
usual PRE can be demonstrated in a within-subject, multiple-
schedule procedure much like that used by Nevin (e.g., 1974;
see also Nevin et al., 1983;Nevinetal., 1981) to evaluate resis-
tance to change.
This conclusion is complicated considerably by the work of
Pavlik and his associates. Pavlik, Carlton, and Manto (1965)
replicated Hearst's (1961) result with rats in a two-lever, two-
component multiple schedule in which components changed af-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ter a predetermined number of responses or reinforcers. The
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
interpretation of their results is complicated, however, by the
occurrence of numerous responses on the previously incorrect
lever during extinction, suggesting the breakdown of stimulus
control. More important, the results appear to be quite different
when schedule components are arranged on a single lever and
alternate regularly in time, regardless of behavior, as in the ma-
jority of research on resistance to change cited above. Pavlik
and Carlton (1965) trained rats on mult CRF VR 3 schedules
with 30-s components for four 20-min sessions and then con-
ducted a single session of extinction. They observed more re-
sponses in the presence of the signal for the former CRF sched-
ule than for the VR 3 schedule and termed the result a "reverse
PRE." They also trained two control groups on either CRF or
VR 3 for four 10-min sessions and observed the standard PRE
during extinction when the latter two groups were compared.
Pavlik, Carlton, Lehr, and Hendrickson (1967) replicated these
results with more extensive training and testing, and Adams,
Nemeth, and Pavlik (1982) replicated again with female (as op-
posed to male) rats and sucrose (as opposed to food) reinforce-
ment. Thus, the reverse PRE may be reasonably general, for
individual rats at least.
Although most of the data reported by Pavlik and his associ-
ates (Pavlik & Carlton, 1965; Pavlik etal., 1967; Pavlik, Carlton,
& Manto, 1965) support the generalization that resistance to
change is directly related to reinforcement rate, they are based
on a limited range of schedules. Moreover, VR 3 can in fact
result in a fairly high rate of reinforcement if the subjects re-
spond rapidly. Hearst's (1961) data, based on a somewhat wider
range of schedule values, do not support the generalization, and
neither do the results of the many studies that compare extinc-
tion after CRF and intermittent reinforcement with indepen-
dent groups. For assessment methods other than extinction,
there is no conflict between within-subject and independent-
groups research. Thus, the PRE as usually reported remains
inconsistent with the effects of other assessment methods on
resistance to change.
Reanalysis of the PRE
To resolve the discrepancy between extinction and other as-
sessment methods when CRF is compared with intermittent
reinforcement, I examined a number of extinction studies per-
formed during the past 40 years and attempted to isolate the
critical variables. Because the resistance-to-change literature
cited above used free-operant methods exclusively, I concen-
trate on the free-operant extinction literature in this review.
Discussion of discrete-trial research is reserved for a later sec-
tion of this article.
Slopes of Extinction Curves
The most common measure of the free-operant PRE is total
number of responses in some fixed period of extinction or to
some extinction criterion. Such measures fail to distinguish the
initial level of responding (velocity in the momentum meta-
phor) from the rate of decrease of response rate (which is in-
versely related to behavioral mass). Two performances with
different initial levels may extinguish at the same rate (indicat-
ing that they have the same mass) and yet differ markedly in
total number of responses, and two performances that start at
different initial levels but extinguish at rates that are inversely
related to their levels may be similar in total number of re-
sponses. This fairly obvious point was made some time ago by
Clark (1959), who provided a quantitative account of extinction
that is directly relevant to the analysis of resistance to change.
Clark's (1959) account was based on Skinner's (1938) sugges-
tion that momentary response rate in extinction (r in Clark's,
1959, notation) was proportional to the number of responses
remaining in the "reflex reserve." If R is the total number of
responses emitted up to time / and Cis total responses to extinc-
tion (i.e., the size of the reserve),
R = C(l - <?-*')• (7)
This implies that momentary response rate (the first derivative
of total responses as a function of time) is
r = dRIdt = kCe'to /o
or, in logarithm form,
log r = log kC - kt, (8)
where k, the rate constant of the exponential decay process, is
given by the slope of the function relating response rate to time
in semilogarithmic coordinates and is independent of C. This is
the form in which many resistance-to-change results have been
analyzed; t (time in extinction) is the variable used to assess
resistance to change. Therefore, the shallower the slope of the
extinction function, the greater is behavioral mass (i.e., resis-
tance to change), regardless of the total number of responses.
In the present reanalysis, I compare the slopes of functions that
describe the decrease in response rate across successive sessions
of extinction after training with CRF or intermittent reinforce-
ment.
I located five studies in which subjects were trained on CRF
and one or more intermittent schedules with equal numbers of
reinforcers and in which extinction data were reported over the
course of three or more sessions so that slopes could be esti-
mated. I believe that all published studies meeting these criteria
are included in the reanalyses.
1. Boren (1961) studied response rate and resistance to ex-
tinction as functions of the FR schedule used in training. After
initial lever-press training, six groups of rats were trained for 10
sessions each on CRF, FR 3, FR 6, FR 10, FR 15, or FR 21,
with 50 reinforcers per session. They were then exposed to five
 BEHAVIORAL MOMENTUM AND THE PARTIAL REINFORCEMENT EFFECT
1-hr extinction sessions on consecutive days. Average response
rates for Training Sessions 9 and 10 were reported and were
taken as baseline; average response rates in each extinction ses-
sion were used to estimate resistance to change over the course
of extinction. Complete tables of data were given in Boren's
(1953) doctoral dissertation.
2. P. Jenkins (1978) studied response rate, resistance to ex-
tinction, and resistance to deprivation change (see above) as
functions of the RR schedule used during training. He followed
Boren's (1953, 1961) general method closely, using six groups
of rats trained for seven sessions of 50 reinforcers each on CRF,
RR 5, RR 10, RR 20, RR 30, and RR 40 schedules. He then
conducted five 50-min extinction sessions on consecutive days.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Average response rates for Training Sessions 5, 6, and 7 were
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
reported and were taken as baseline, and average response rates
in each extinction session were used to estimate resistance to
change over the course of extinction. Complete tables of data
were given in P. Jenkins's (1977) master's thesis.
3. W. O. Jenkins, McFann, and Clayton (1950) studied resis-
tance to extinction after training with CRF or VI 1-min sched-
ules in three ways: six 1-hr sessions on consecutive days, six 1-
hr sessions separated by 2 hr, or one continuous 8-hr session.
The subjects were pigeons, and extinction was preceded by five
sessions of training, with 40 reinforcers per session. Baseline
data were not reported, but complete tables of extinction data
were given in the article. For comparability with other analyses,
only the data for six daily 1-hr extinction sessions are treated
here.
4. W. O. Jenkins and Rigby (1950) studied resistance to ex-
tinction in independent groups of rats after training with CRF,
FI1 -min, and FI 2-min schedules. Three 1 -hr sessions of extinc-
tion followed 90 reinforcers on these schedules. A fourth group
was trained on CRF for 2,400 reinforcers, which required as
much total training time as the 90 FI 2-min reinforcers. Base-
line data were not reported, but complete tables of extinction
data were provided in the article.
5. Wilson (1954b) studied response rate and resistance to
extinction as functions of the FI schedule used during training.
He also followed Boren's (1953,1961) general method, training
independent groups of rats on CRF, FI 10-s, FI 20-s, FI 1-min,
FI 2-min, FI 4-min, and FI 8-min schedules. One set of groups
was trained for 15 reinforcers, and a second set of groups was
trained for 240 reinforcers before five 50-min extinction ses-
sions were given on consecutive days. No baseline data were
reported for the 15-reinforcer groups; therefore, changes rela-
tive to baseline (average response rates for the last 35 reinforc-
ers) were analyzed for the 240-reinforcer groups only. In his dis-
sertation, however, Wilson (1954a) tabulated average response
rates for all groups during extinction.
Wilson (1954b) conducted a second experiment, in which
four additional groups of rats were trained for 50, 85, 120, or
500 reinforcers on an FI 2-min schedule before extinction test-
ing. Thus, including the 15- and 240-reinforcer groups from the
first experiment, a function relating extinction responding to
number of intermittently scheduled reinforcers is also available.
For each of the five studies described above, response rates in
each session of extinction were expressed as proportions of the
response rate in the initial extinction session in order to evalu-
ate the rate of change of response rate within the extinction
49
1.00
.50
.20
.10
.05
.02
1.00
.50
.20
Wilson (1954) Borer. (I960
.10 • CRF
O • CRF
o FI .33 (4.7) • FR 15 (58)
.05 a FI I (70) i FR 21 (.78)
b £ FI 2 (11.2)
o. [500]
[240
.02
Successive Sessions of Extinction
Figure 1. Six sets of extinction curves for free-operant behavior are pre-
sented as proportions of response rate in the first session of extinction,
plotted on semilogarithmic axes to permit comparison of their slopes.
Numbers of reinforcers during training are shown in brackets for each
set. If ratio schedules were used, I estimated the average time between
reinforcers from baseline data; it is shown in parentheses (in minutes).
Across studies, the slopes of the extinction curves after continuous rein-
forcement (CRF) become shallower than they do after the various inter-
mittent schedules as the number of reinforcers in training increases.
(VI = variable interval; FI = fixed interval; RR = random ratio; FR =
fixed ratio.)
procedure. Portions of the data are shown in Figure 1; for rough
comparability across studies, only those groups that experi-
enced average interreinforcement intervals between 0.33 and 2
min are shown, together with the CRF data. The number of
reinforcers given during training is shown in brackets. Here it
appears that as the number of reinforcers increases, the slopes
of the extinction functions shift relative to each other. After 15
or 90 reinforcers, the slope of the CRF extinction function is
generally steeper than for the intermittent schedules; at 200 or
240 reinforcers, the slopes become similar; and at 350 reinforc-
ers, the CRF function may be slightly shallower. After 500 rein-
forcers, there is no doubt about the result: Responding in ex-
tinction after CRF is decidedly more persistent than after inter-
mittent reinforcement, relative to its initial level.
Confirming data for independent groups come from the stud-
ies by Pavlik and his associates (Adams et al., 1982; Pavlik et
al., 1967) cited above. Adams et al. (1982) trained their subjects
for 100 min, and Pavlik et al. (1967) trained their subjects for
220 min before beginning extinction. Both groups of authors
reported a conventional between-groups PRE when they exam-
 50 JOHN A. KEVIN

Mowrer 8 Adams et al. Pavlik et al.

Jones (1945) (1982) (1967)

in
c
o .5
Q. c
en o
(B tn
u>
<u
[l40rft] [230 mlnj
c
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

o
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

CRF -B -• C R F - B
•CRF-B o—o V R 3 - B -o VR3 - B
S. .5 o FR3- B •-• CRF-W • CRF - W
o 0-0 V R 3 - W o VR3-W

I 2 3 1 2 3 1 2
Sessions of Extinction
Figure 2. Further data, in the form of Figure 1, showing that the slopes of extinction curves after continuous
reinforcement (CRF) become shallower than they do after intermittent reinforcement with extended train-
ing. The studies by Adams, Nemeth, & Pavlik (1982) and Pavlik, Carlton, Lehr, & Hendrickson (1967)
included subjects trained with both schedules, to permit within-subject (W) as well as between-groups (B)
comparisons, (rft = total reinforcers before extinction; 100 and 220 min = total training time before extinc-
tion; FR =fixedratio; VR - variable ratio.)

ined simple response totals; however, if the data are reexpressed
as proportions of response rate in the first session of extinction,
responding appears more persistent after CRF than after VR 3,
and the difference increases with duration of training.
The Pavlik et al. (1967) data are summarized in Figure 2,
together with those of an early systematic study of the PRE for
free-operant behavior by Mowrer and Jones (1945). Mowrer
and Jones trained independent groups of rats on CRF, FR 2,
FR 3, and FR 4 for 140 reinforcers and then conducted three
20-min sessions of extinction on successive days, an extinction
procedure comparable to that used by Pavlik and his associates
(Adams et al., 1982; Pavlik et al., 1967). As the figure shows,
FR 3 performance extinguished more slowly than CRF perfor-
mance after 140 reinforcers (the data are tabled in Mowrer and
Jones's article), but the reverse is true for the data of Adams et
al. (1982) after ten 10-min sessions of training (which probably
resulted in over 500 reinforcers for the CRF group) and for the
data of Pavlik et al. (1967) after twenty-two 10-min training
sessions (which probably resulted in well over 1,000 reinforcers
for the CRF group). Thus, it appears that after extensive train-
ing, the rate of extinction after CRF is slower than after inter-
mittent reinforcement for independent groups. This result is,
of course, consistent with the generalization that resistance to
change—construed as the inverse of the slope of the function
relating response rate to the value of some assessment opera-
tion—is an increasing function of the rate of reinforcement.
Figure 2 also contains within-subject comparisons from Ad-
ams et al. (1982) and Pavlik et al. (1967), in the form of response
rates relative to those in the first session of extinction. (Recall
that these data showed a reverse PRE when response totals were
examined.) Although the data are less complete than one might
wish, they suggest that the rate of extinction is also slower after
CRF than after intermittent reinforcement in within-subject
comparisons, at least after 220 min of training.
Initial Decrements Relative to Baseline
The slopes of the extinction curves presented above do not, of
course, give the whole story: They say nothing about the initial
decrement in extinction relative to baseline response rates. The
studies by Boren (1961), P. Jenkins (1978), and Wilson (1954b)
provided the baseline data that are required for the analysis.
However, all three studies reported response rates without cor-
rection for eating time. Thus, momentary baseline response
rates are likely to be underestimated, and the ratios of extinc-
tion response rates to baseline response rates are likely to be
overestimated for schedules with frequent reinforcement.
Response rates for the first session of extinction are shown as
proportions of baseline response rates for all three studies in
Figure 3. Two specifications of the training schedule were used:
(a) reinforcers per response, which was experimentally con-
trolled in the Boren (1961) and P. Jenkins (1978) studies but
had to be estimated from Wilson's (1954b) baseline data, and
(b) reinforcers per hour, which was experimentally controlled in
the Wilson (1954b) study but had to be estimated from Boren's
(1961) and P. Jenkins's (1978) baseline data.
The upper panel of Figure 3 shows that response rate in the
first session of extinction was a generally decreasing function of
reinforcers per response; that is, the richer the training sched-
ule, the greater the relative reduction at the onset of extinction.
 BEHAVIORAL MOMENTUM AND THE PARTIAL REINFORCEMENT EFFECT 51

part of the stimulus situation in which responding is reinforced;

c (b) with respect to these aspects of the stimulus situation, the
o difference between CRF and extinction is greater than between
intermittent reinforcement and extinction because nonrein-
forcement and its consequences have been experienced during
training; (c) in the study of stimulus generalization, larger re-
X
o sponse decrements are routinely observed with larger changes
in stimulus values; and (d) therefore, one should find a larger
decrement in extinction after CRF than after intermittent rein-
c forcement. Figure 3 confirms this line of argument and, more-
o
over, suggests that the relevant stimulus dimension is the rate of
8.8 reinforcement obtained during training.
o
w The schedule in effect immediately before the transition from
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

training to extinction may not be the crucial determiner of gen-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

eralization decrement. H. M. Jenkins (1962) and Theios (1962)

•= o.
£ "01 .10 i.o interpolated periods of CRF between partial reinforcement and
c Reinforcers per response in baseline extinction in discrete-trial procedures and found that the usual
PRE was only slightly attenuated (Theios) or even, perhaps, en-
Wil*on(l954) oFI «CRF hanced (H. M. Jenkins, 1962) as a result. Evidently, the novelty
Bar«n(l96l) aFR "CRF rather than the abruptness of nonreinforcement determines the
a> Jenkins (1978) ARR »CRF initial decrement. In any case, there must inevitably be differ-
c ential exposure to nonreinforcement across groups in any be-
— .6
«
tween-groups study of the PRE, and the stimulus consequences
U) of this differential exposure to nonreinforcement complicate
D
XI the measurement of resistance to change.

Confounding Effects of Generalization Decrement

Nevin (1974,1979; see discussion above) has emphasized the

2 need to apply a single, uniform operation to the performances
o
a.
o
10 100 1000
Reinforcers per hour in baseline
Figure 3. Response rates during the first session of extinction, expressed
as proportions of the final response rates maintained during training,
are related to either reinforcers per response (upper panel) or reinforcers
per hour (lower panel) experienced during training. The decreasing
slopes of all functions may be understood in relation to the generaliza-
tion-decrement hypothesis of extinction, according to which the reduc-
tion in responding depends on the change in the stimulus situation from
training. (Fl = fixed interval; FR = fixed ratio; RR = random ratio;
CRF = continuous reinforcement.)
All functions would be steeper if baseline response rates were
corrected for eating time. The Wilson (1954b) data agree with
the Boren (1961) and P. Jenkins (1978) data at rich schedule
values but are consistently higher at leaner schedule values. The
lower panel shows the same trend with respect to reinforcers per
hour, but now there is substantial agreement across the three
data sets over the full range of their overlap.
These results exemplify the generalization-decrement hy-
pothesis, which has been advanced repeatedly to explain many
aspects of the PRE and related extinction phenomena. (For re-
view and discussion, see Mackintosh, 1974; Staddon, 1975.)
Briefly, the hypothesis asserts that (a) the delivery of reinforcers
and the consequences of nonreinforcement are themselves a
being compared for resistance to change. Otherwise, the assess-
ment is confounded: A given result could arise either because
the performances differ in persistence or because the assessment
operation was differentially applied. The extinction procedure
evidently includes two factors: the termination of reinforce-
ment and the change in the stimulus situation. The former is
uniform with respect to all performances undergoing extinc-
tion, but the latter is not, being greater for CRF or other sched-
ules that arrange high reinforcement rates than for low rein-
forcement rates.
In the terms of the momentum metaphor, it is as if two bodies
with different masses and moving at different velocities were
subjected to forces with two components. The heavier, slower
body represents the mass and velocity established by CRF, and
the lighter, faster body represents the mass and velocity estab-
lished by intermittent reinforcement. One component of the
opposing force is like friction (analogous to the termination of
reinforcement): It is applied equally to both, continuously
throughout their deceleration. The other component is like the
application of a brake (analogous to generalization decrement):
It is applied differentially to the two bodies—more strongly to
the heavier and slower—with diminishing force as they slow
down. When the braking forces terminate, only friction is oper-
ative, and the heavier body will decelerate less rapidly than the
lighter body, regardless of their velocities when the brakes are
removed. Therefore, the effect of the differential braking com-
ponent must be removed if the relative masses of the two bodies
are to be estimated accurately.
This is what the examination of changes in response rate rela-
 52 JOHN A. NEVIN
live to the initial session of extinction was intended to accom-
plish. Unfortunately, the generalization-decrement component
of the difference between training and extinction lasts for an
unknown period of time. For want of a better approach, I have
used response rate in the first whole session of extinction, rela-
tive to baseline, to characterize the generalization-decrement
effect and then used that first session as a baseline for assessing
the subsequent rate of extinction. Although this procedure does
not alter the slope of the extinction curve, which is invariant
(in semilogarithmic coordinates) with respect to the choice of
baseline, it is admittedly arbitrary. Each successive daily session
of extinction involves removing the subject from its home cage,
placing it in the experimental chamber, and turning on the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
houselight or other signal that a session has begun. During
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
training, this stimulus complex was followed sooner (if CRF)
or later (if an intermittent schedule) by reinforcers. The daily
reinstatement of these beginning-of-session cues may make gen-
eralization from training to extinction a potent factor for some
time. Accordingly, an unbiased assessment of resistance to ex-
tinction must somehow eliminate the differential stimulus con-
sequences of the onset of an extinction session after CRF or
intermittent reinforcement. An experimental effort to do just
this is reported below.
Effects of Number of Reinforcers
Before further discussion of the generalization-decrement
problem, it is necessary to consider how resistance to extinction
is affected by the length of training, which appears as an impor-
tant parameter across the various studies considered in Figures
1 and 2. Several studies permit direct examination of resistance
to extinction as a function of number of reinforcers. Wilson
(1954b) reported data for resistance to change after CRF train-
ing for 15 or 240 reinforcers, and Boren (1961), who used the
same apparatus as Wilson (1954b) and followed virtually identi-
cal procedures, provided data for 500 reinforcers. W. O. Jenkins
and Rigby (1950) provided data for 90 and 2,400 reinforcers;
D'Amato, Schiff, and Jagoda (1962) provided data for 200,400,
800, and 1,600 reinforcers; and Furomoto (1971; see also 1966)
provided data for conditions ranging from 3 to 10,000 rein-
forcers.
Examination of the Wilson (1954b) and Boren (1961) data in
Figure 1 suggests that resistance to extinction of continuously
reinforced responding increases from 15 to 240 to 500 reinforc-
ers. The extinction curves of W. O. Jenkins and Rigby (1950)—
not shown—are shallower after 2,400 reinforcers than after 90
reinforcers. D'Amato et al. (1962) and Furomoto (1966) ana-
lyzed their data in the manner suggested by Clark (1959). D'A-
mato et al. (1962) found little effect of number of reinforcers on
the slope of the extinction curve, except that the slope for 1,600
reinforcers was shallowest, whereas Furomoto (1966) found
that her extinction curves became shallower up to 1,000 rein-
forcers. In general, continuously reinforced responding appears
to become more resistant to extinction as training continues, at
least up to 1,000 reinforcers, but no asymptote is well-defined
by the extant data.
Unfortunately, there are many fewer studies of resistance to
change of intermittently reinforced responding in which num-
ber of reinforcers is varied. Wilson (1954b) provided data on
resistance to extinction after training on FT 2-min schedules,
over the range from 15 to 500 reinforcers. Examination of this
data set (not shown) reveals a systematic increase in the number
of responses made during 5 extinction sessions but little if any
evidence of a consistent change in the slope of the extinction
curves. Other relevant data come from a study by Lentz and
Cohen (1980), who trained pigeons on a VI f-min schedule and
gave free food in the experimental chamber at various stages of
training. The decrement in response rate with free food, relative
to the immediately preceding baseline rate, suggests a gradual
increase in resistance to change as training progresses, at least
up to 48 sessions and perhaps beyond, with 60 reinforcers per
session. Again, no asymptote is well-defined. However, for prac-
tical purposes, the data suggest that the difference in resistance
to change between continuously and intermittently reinforced
responding may become maximal after approximately 1,000 to
3,000 reinforcers.
A Confirming Experiment
Nevin (1985) examined extinction after CRF and after inter-
mittent reinforcement in a within-subject design with extended
training, in a procedure that attempted to equalize the decre-
mental effects of the transition to nonreinforcement by provid-
ing repeated extinction after an explicit signal. In a standard
two-key pigeon chamber, three pigeons were exposed to daily
sessions that always began with reinforcement and always ended
with extinction. On odd-numbered days, the left, red key was
lighted, and a 3-s food reinforcer was given after every key peck.
After 50 reinforcers, the key and chamber lights went dark for
10 s and were then relighted for 64 min of nonreinforcement.
The same procedure was used on even-numbered days except
that the right, green key was lighted and 50 food reinforcers
were given according to a VI 30-s schedule before the 10-s
blackout and the 64-min extinction period. Thus, the birds ex-
perienced daily repeated extinction sessions after both CRF and
intermittent reinforcement, arranged on keys that differed in
color and location, with the transitions to extinction signaled
by blackout in both cases. After 8 initial sessions—4 left red
CRF and 4 right green VI 30 s—consisting of 50 reinforcers
each but without the 64-min extinction period, this procedure
remained in effect for 125 sessions. As a result, the subjects re-
ceived over 3,000 reinforcers on each schedule before the end
of training.
It is well-known that repeated alternations of training and
extinction reduce total responses during extinction, but other
aspects of extinction performance may also change under these
conditions. Clark (1964) subjected pigeons to repeated alter-
nations of VI 1-min reinforcement and extinction and found
that the initial extinction response rate decreased and the slope
of the extinction curve became increasingly negative over 20
such repetitions. Clark and Taylor (1960) performed a similar
experiment with rats on CRF schedules and found similar
trends over 12 such repetitions. Thus, both the level and the
slope of the extinction curves may be expected to change over
the course of repeated training and extinction in the present
study.
The results, broken down into successive 16-min segments of
extinction, pooled over blocks of sessions, and averaged for the
 BEHAVIORAL MOMENTUM AND THE PARTIAL REINFORCEMENT EFFECT
Days 75-125
• CRF
o VI 30sec
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
3 4
Successive Quarters of Extinction
Figure 4. The upper panels show the rates of responding throughout
repeated 64-min sessions of extinction, following 50 reinforcers on ei-
ther continuous reinforcement (CRF) or variable interval (VI) 30-s
schedules and a 10-s time-out. The lower panels show the averaged pro-
portions of response rates during the first 16 min of extinction. Overall
levels of responding are lower after many repeated alternations of rein-
forcement and extinction (upper panels), and the slopes of the extinc-
tion curves are steeper (lower panels). Also, with extended training, the
slope of the extinction curve following CRF is shallower than it is follow-
ing VI 30-s reinforcement. (CRF = continuous reinforcement; VI =
variable interval.)
3 subjects, are presented in Figure 4. The upper left panel shows
that there were substantially more responses throughout extinc-
tion after VI 30-s reinforcement than after CRF during the early
sessions, and the upper right panel shows that the levels had
fallen sharply by the final 50 sessions of the procedure. On aver-
age, there were more key pecks following VI than following CRF
even after extended training, but there were several sessions of
both kinds in which no pecks at all occurred.
For each subject, pooled response rates in the second, third,
and fourth 16-min segments of extinction were expressed as
proportions of the rate during the first segment and then aver-
aged. The results, presented in the lower panels of Figure 4,
show that there was little difference in the slopes of the extinc-
53
tion curves within the 64-min extinction period early in train-
ing, consistent with Figures 1 and 2. A substantial difference
was evident during the final 50 sessions, with CRF leading to
more persistent (albeit lower level) responding. For both CRF
and VI 30-s conditions, the final slopes were steeper than early
in training, exactly as in the data of Clark (1964) and Clark and
Taylor (1960).
Although these differences held for all three birds, the post-
CRF extinction rates were so low during the final 50 sessions
that a few sporadic, random bursts of responses could have al-
tered the picture considerably. Response bursts occurring
within the first 16-min segment of extinction may be inter-
preted as "spontaneous recovery" and may affect the results.
For example, if the VI 30-s schedule generates greater spontane-
ous recovery than does CRF during the initial segment of ex-
tinction, relative response rates in subsequent segments will be
artifactually lower following VI 30-s reinforcement than follow-
ing CRF. However, there are no independent data bearing on
this possibility, and in any case, the extinction curves differed
in slope as well as level. Thus, the results are consistent with
other within-subject and between-groups data showing that af-
ter extended training, CRF engenders shallower extinction
curves than does intermittent reinforcement. In summary, it
appears that slower extinction after CRF than after intermittent
reinforcement is the normative asymptotic result.
Comparison With Findings of Discrete-Trial Research
In this review, I have concentrated on free-operant behavior,
for which the natural dependent variable is the rate at which an
unconstrained response is repeated during an extended period
of time, for example, an experimental session or a signaled
schedule component. The principal reason for this emphasis is
that the quantitative study of behavioral momentum has used
free-operant methods and has used changes in response rate as
its dependent measure. The overwhelming majority of research
on the PRE, however, has used discrete-trial methods, most
commonly with rats in runways, in which the natural depen-
dent variable is the within-trial speed of a highly constrained
response that is extended in space and time. The data of runway
studies tell a different story from those of free-operant research.
With respect to the PRE during extinction, between-groups
research has demonstrated repeatedly that running persists at
high speeds for many more trials after training on a partial rein-
forcement schedule than after CRF, even when running speed is
expressed as a proportion of speed during the initial extinction
trials. (See, e.g., Weinstock, 1954, Figure 2, where this result is
evident by inspection.) This ordinal outcome is quite robust
with respect to such parameters as percentage of reinforced tri-
als, length of training, magnitude of the reinforcer, and trial
spacing. Moreover, it is not confined to rats in runways with
running speed as the measure but appears also with pigeons
pecking a briefly lighted key with probability of response as the
measure (e.g., H. M. Jenkins, 1962) and in many other prepara-
tions as well (see Mackintosh, 1974, for review). Within-subject
analyses have sometimes obtained a reverse PRE (e.g., Pavlik,
Carlton, & Hughes, 1965; Pavlik & Collier, 1977), but other re-
search has failed to replicate the reverse PRE within subjects
(e.g., Amsel, Rashotte, & MacKinnon, 1966; Rashotte & Am-
 54 JOHN A. NEVIN
sel, 1968). It is not at all clear how these discrete-trial results can
be reconciled with those for free-operant extinction research
reviewed above.
The differences do not stop with resistance to extinction. For
example, running speed is also more resistant to satiation
(Haas, Shessel, Willner, & Rescorla, 1970) and to punishment
(Brown & Wagner, 1964) when it is maintained by partial rein-
forcement than when it is maintained by CRF, contrary to the
free-operant results cited above. Also, across trials, running
speed decreases more rapidly in the goal section of the runway
than in the start section, during both extinction (e.g., Wagner,
1961) and satiation (Rescorla, 1977). If running is viewed as a
chain, this result is exactly contrary to findings with free-oper-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ant chain schedules, in which response rate is more resistant to
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
change at the end of the chain than at the beginning (see Nevin
et al., 1981, for data and review). The functional differences
between discrete-trial and free-operant results appear to extend
well beyond the PRE.
There is one area of clear agreement, however. In discrete-
trial as well as free-operant choice procedures, subjects uni-
formly prefer stimuli correlated with CRF over stimuli corre-
lated with partial or intermittent reinforcement (e.g., D'Amato,
Lachman, & Kivy, 1958; vom Saal, 1972). This preference is
opposite in direction to the relative persistence of discrete-trial
performance and thus raises some important questions of inter-
nal consistency. For example, these choice results suggest that
partially reinforced behavior should be less resistant than con-
tinuously reinforced behavior to competition from a reinforced
alternative, which is inconsistent with their relative persistence
during extinction, satiation, or punishment. A full discussion
of this inconsistency and of the functional differences between
free-operant and discrete-trial persistence would be both
lengthy and speculative and is beyond the scope of this article.
Some Consequences for Behavior
Modification and Therapy
In applied and therapeutic settings, one common goal of be-
havior modification or therapy is to define a class of desirable
behavior, make its occurrence more probable within the thera-
peutic setting, and ensure its effective persistence in everyday
life. In this section, I give a brief and general overview of the
implications of the data reviewed above for this goal; more de-
tailed consideration of specific therapeutic problems and meth-
ods is needed but is beyond the scope of this article.
The first question pertains to the class of behavior being es-
tablished. If it is operant—that is, affected by its conse-
quences—is it best construed as free operant, initiated in the
presence of appropriate stimuli but otherwise unconstrained?
Or is it blocked or enabled by external factors, in a fashion anal-
ogous to discrete-trial procedures? In view of the apparent
functional differences between free-operant and discrete-trial
persistence results reviewed above, this question may be impor-
tant for the treatment strategy.
Second, once the desired behavior is established, whether by
shaping, modeling, or instruction, what reinforcement contin-
gencies should be used? Should the rate of occurrence of re-
peated instances of the response class be maximized by the use
of a ratio schedule, for example, or should differential reinforce-
ment be used to select and strengthen qualitative variants of the
class, as in skill training? In brief, is it the rate of performance,
the quality, or both that count? If a high rate is desirable, with
or without differential reinforcement with respect to quality, by
implication the performance must be treated as a free operant,
and the results of free-operant research should be relevant.
Third, with respect to persistence in everyday life, is it desir-
able that the total number of repetitions of the newly estab-
lished behavior be large, or is the long-term maintenance of a
stable rate, even at a low level, more important? To the extent
that data from the animal laboratory are applicable, it ought to
be possible to achieve both, for example, by the use of a short
ratio schedule that generates high rates as a result of the ratio
contingency and substantial resistance to change as a result of
the relatively high rate of reinforcement obtained. Indeed, this
is the sort of procedure that should maximize behavioral mo-
mentum—the product of mass and velocity—in the Newtonian
metaphor described above.
Fourth, it is by no means clear that the only relevant data
are those taken from research on resistance to extinction. No
responsible therapist would establish a class of behavior that
goes unreinforced in everyday life; indeed, that would be a
definition of undesirable behavior. Accordingly, it is important
to consider resistance to challenges other than nonreinforce-
ment, such as competition from alternative activities and their
reinforcers, or suppression by occasional punishers that may
result from the uncontrolled conditions of everyday life. More-
over, reductions in newly acquired behavior due to generaliza-
tion decrement are likelier to arise from differences between the
therapeutic setting and everyday life than from stimulus differ-
ences between reinforcement and extinction. Given all these
considerations, it may be quite inappropriate, in many cases, to
base a therapeutic program on the PRE as studied in discrete-
trial alleyway research. Nation and Woods (1980) argued that
therapists should consider these discrete-trial results in devising
treatment strategies, and so they should; but therapists should
also give full consideration to the principles that have emerged
from research on free-operant resistance to change and use
them as appropriate when they seem applicable to the nature of
the behavior in question and to the desired outcomes of therapy.
Conclusion
The PRE for free-operant behavior, as usually reported, is
thoroughly confounded. The usual measure of resistance to ex-
tinction confounds the level of responding and the slope of the
extinction curve, and the extinction procedure itself confounds
decremental effects of stimulus change with the effects of nonre-
inforcement. When subjects are given extended training before
extinction, when the rate of decrease of responding is measured
separately during the course of extinction, and when stimulus-
change effects are controlled, the rate of decrease of responding
appears to be lower following training with CRF than it is fol-
lowing training with intermittent reinforcement. Thus, in free-
operant research, there is no discrepancy between the effects of
extinction and the many other procedures demonstrating that
resistance to change is a positive function of the rate of rein-
forcement. Accordingly, theoretical analyses of behavioral mo-
mentum can proceed with reasonable confidence in the consis-
 BEHAVIORAL MOMENTUM AND THE PARTIAL REINFORCEMENT EFFECT
tency of the data. Unfortunately, the results of discrete-trial
studies are not, in general, consistent with the free-operant
findings, suggesting that therapeutic applications of laboratory
research must be considered with great care.
References
Adams, J. E.Nemeth, R. V., &Pavlik, W. B. (1982). Between-and with-
in-subjects PRE with sucrose incentives. Bulletin of the Psychonomic
Society, 20,261-262.
Amsel, A., Rashotte, M. E., & MacKinnon, J. R. (1966). Partial rein-
forcement effects within subjects and between subjects. Psychological
Monographs, 80(20, Whole No. 628).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Autor, S. (1969). The strength of conditioned reinforcers as a function
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
of frequency and probability of reinforcement. In D. P. Hendry (Ed.),
Conditioned reinforcement (pp. 127-162). Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Blackman, D. E. (1968). Response rate, reinforcement frequency, and
conditioned suppression. Journal of the Experimental Analysis ofBe-
havior, //, 503-516.
Boren, J. J. (1953). Response rate and resistance to extinction as func-
tions of the fixed ratio. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia
University, New York.
Boren, J. J. (1961). Resistance to extinction as a function of the fixed
ratio. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 304-308.
Bouzas, A. (1978). The relative law of effect: Effects of shock intensity
on response strength in multiple schedules. Journal of the Experimen-
tal Analysis of Behavior, 30, 307-314.
Brown, R. X, & Wagner, A. R. (1964). Resistance to punishment and
extinction following training with shock or nonreinforcement. Jour-
nal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 503-507.
Carlton, P. L. (1961). The interacting effects of deprivation and rein-
forcement schedule. Journal of the Experimental Analysis ofBehav-
ior, 4, 379-381.
Church, R. M., & Raymond, G. A. (1967). Influence of the schedule of
positive reinforcement on punished behavior. Journal ofComparative
and Physiological Psychology, 63, 329-332.
Clark, F. C. (1959). Some quantitative properties of operant extinction
fate.. Psychological Reports, 5, 131-139.
Clark, F. C. (1964). Effects of repeated VI reinforcement and extinction
upon operant behavior. Psychological Reports, 15, 943-955.
Clark, F. C., & Taylor, B. W. (1960). Effects of repeated extinction of
an operant on characteristics of extinction. Psychological Reports, 6,
226.
Cohen, S. L. (1986). A pharmacological examination of the resistance-
to-change hypothesis of response strength. Journal of the Experimen-
tal Analysis of Behavior, 46, 363-379.
D'Amato, M. R., Lachman, R., & Kivy, P. (1958). Secondary reinforce-
ment as affected by reward schedule and the testing situation. Journal
of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 51,734-741.
D'Amato, M. R., Schiff, D., & Jagoda, H. (1962). Resistance to extinc-
tion after varying amounts of discriminative or nondiscriminative in-
strumental training. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 526-
532.
Eckerman, C. (1968, August). Deprivation conditions and chained
schedule and multiple schedule performance. Paper presented at the
convention of the American Psychological Association, San Fran-
cisco, CA.
Elsmore, T. F. (1971). Effects of response effort on discrimination per-
formance. Psychological Record, 21, 17-24.
Elsmore, T. F., & Hursh, S. (1982). Orcadian rhythms in operant behav-
ior of animals under laboratory conditions. In F. M. Brown & R. C.
Graeber (Eds.), Rhythmic aspects of behavior (pp. 273-310). Hills-
dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Path, S. J., Fields, L., Malott, M. K., & Grossen, D. (1983). Response
55
rate, latency, and resistance to change. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 39, 267-274.
Furomoto, L. (1966). Extinction in the pigeon after continuous rein-
forcement: Effects of number of reinforced responses. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Furomoto, L. (1971). Extinction in the pigeon after continuous rein-
forcement: Effects of number of reinforced responses. Psychological
Reports, 28, 331-338.
Gollub, L. R., & Urban, J. T. (1958). The accentuation of a rate differ-
ence during extinction. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Be-
havior, 1, 365-369.
Haas, R B., Shessel, F. M., Willner, H. S., & Rescorla, R. A. (1970).
The effect of satiation following partial reinforcement. Psychonomic
Science, IS, 296-297.
Hearst, E. (1961). Resistance-to-extinction functions in the single or-
ganism. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 133-
144.
Herrnstein, R. J. (1964). Secondary reinforcement and rate of primary
reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 7,
27-36.
Herrnstein, R. J., & Loveland, D. H. (1974). Hunger and contrast in a
multiple schedule. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,
24, 107-116.
Jenkins, H. M. (1962). Resistance to extinction when partial reinforce-
ment is followed by regular reinforcement. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 64, 441-450.
Jenkins, P. (1977). Resistance to extinction, and satiation following
training on random ratio schedules. Unpublished master's thesis,
University of New Hampshire, Durham.
Jenkins, P. (1978). Resistance to extinction and satiation following
training on random-ratio schedules of reinforcement. Psychological
Record, 25,471^178.
Jenkins, W. O., McFann, H, & Clayton, F. L. (1950). A methodological
study of extinction following aperiodic and continuous reinforce-
ment. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 43, 155-
167.
Jenkins, W, O., & Rigby, M. K. (1950). Partial (periodic) versus continu-
ous reinforcement in resistance to extinction. Journal ofComparative
and Physiological Psychology, 43, 30-40.
Lea, S. E. G., & Roper, T. J. (1977). Demand for food on fixed-ratio
schedules as a function of the quality of concurrently available food.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 27, 371-380.
Lentz, B. E., & Cohen, S. L. (1980). The effect of prior training on the
contra-freeloading phenomenon. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Soci-
ety, 15, 48-50.
Lyon, D. O. (1963). Frequency of reinforcement as a parameter of con-
ditioned suppression. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behav-
ior, 6, 95-98.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1974). The psychology of animal learning. New
York: Academic Press.
McSweeney, F. K., Farmer, V. A., Dougan, J. D., & Whipple, J. E.
(1986). The generalized matching law as a description of multiple-
schedule responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis ofBehav-
ior,45, 83-101.
Mowrer, O. H., & Jones, H. (1945). Habit strength as a function of the
pattern of reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35,
293-311.
Nation, J. R., & Woods, D. J. (1980). Persistence: The role of partial
reinforcement in psychotherapy. Journal of Experimental Psychol-
ogy: General, 109, 175-207.
Nevin, J. A. (1974). Response strength in multiple schedules. Journal
of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 21, 389-408.
Nevin, J. A. (1979). Reinforcement schedules and response strength. In
 56 JOHN A. NEV1N

M. D. Zeiler & P. Harzem (Eds.), Reinforcement and the organization
of behaviour (pp. 117-158). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Nevin, J. A. (1984). Pavlovian determiners of behavioral momentum.
Animal Learning and Behavior, 12,363-370.
Nevin, J. A. (1985, May). Reinforcement, extinction, and behavioral
momentum. Invited address at the meetings of the Association for
Behavior Analysis, Columbus, OH.
Nevin, J. A., Mandell, C, & Atak, J. R. (1983). The analysis of behav-
ioral momentum. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,
39,49-59.
Nevin, 3. A., Mandell, C, & Yarensky, P. (1981). Response rate and
resistance to change in chained schedules. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 7, 278-294.
Nevin, J. A., Smith, L. D., & Roberts, J. (1987). Does contingent rein-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
PRF and CRF training in different runways, at different times of day,
by different experimenters. Psychonomic Science, 11, 315-316.
Rescorla, R. A. (1977). Pavlovian second-order conditioning: Some im-
plications for instrumental behavior. In H. Davis & H. M. B. Hurwitz
(Eds.), Operant-Pavlovian interactions (pp. 133-164). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts.
Staddon, J. E. R. (1975). Learning as adaptation. In W. K. Estes (Ed.),
Handbook of learning and cognitive processes. Vol. 2: Conditioning
and behavior theory (pp. 37-98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Theios, J. (1962). The partial reinforcement effect sustained through
blocks of continuous reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psy-
chology, 64, 1-6.

forcement strengthen operant behavior? Journal of the Experimental vom Saal, W. (1972). Choice between stimuli previously presented sepa-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Analysis of Behavior. 48, 17-33. rately. Learning and Motivation, 3, 209-222.

Pavlik, W. B., & Carlton, P. L. (1965). A reversed partial-reinforcement
effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 417-423.
Pavlik, W. B., Carlton, P. L., & Hughes, R. A. (1965). Partial reinforce-
ment effects in a runway: Between- and within-Ss. Psychonomic Sci-
ence, 3, 203-204.
Pavlik, W. B., Carlton, P. L., Lehr, R., & Hendrickson, C. (1967). Sup-
plementary reports: A reversed PRE. Journal of Experimental Psy-
chology, 75, 274-276.
Pavlik, W. B., Carlton, P. L., & Manto, P. G. (1965). A further study of
the partial reinforcement effect within-subjects. Psychonomic Sci-
ence, 3, 533-534.
Pavlik, W. B., & Collier, A. C. (1977). Magnitude and schedule of rein-
forcement in rats' resistance to extinction—within subjects. Ameri-
can Journal of Psychology, 90, 195-205.
Pliskoff, S. S., Shull, R. L., & Gollub, L. R. (1968). The relation between
response rates and reinforcement rates in a multiple schedule. Jour-
nal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 11, 271-284.
Rashotte, M. E., & Amsel, A. (1968). The generalized PRE: Within-S
Wagner, A. R. (1961). Effects of amount and percentage of reinforce-
ment and number of acquisition trials on conditioning and extinc-
tion. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62,234-242.
Weinstock, S. (1954). Resistance to extinction of a running response
following partial reinforcement under widely spaced trials. Journal
of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 47,318-322.
Wilson, M. P. (1954a). Periodic reinforcement interval and number of
periodic reinforcements as parameters of response strength. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation (includes data tables not in Wilson,
1954b), Columbia University, New York.
Wilson, M. P. (1954b). Periodic reinforcement interval and number of
periodic reinforcements as parameters of response strength. Journal
of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 47, 51-56.
Received August 11, 1986
Revision received April 9,1987
Accepted May 5, 1987 •

Call for Nominations for Editor of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology

The Publications and Communications Board has opened nominations for the editorship of the
Journal of Abnormal Psychology for the years 1990-1995. Don Fowles is the incumbent editor.
Candidates must be members of APA and should be available to start receiving manuscripts in
early 1989 to prepare for issues published in 1990. Please note that the P&C Board encourages
more participation by women and ethnic minority men and women in the publication process
and would particularly welcome such nominees. To nominate candidates, prepare a statement
of one page or less in support of each candidate. Submit nominations no later than March 1,
1988, to

Amado Padilla
Department of Psychology
University of California-Los Angeles
Los Angeles, California 90024

Other members of the search committee are Michael J. Goldstein and Anthony J. Marsella.