Power point article

MINIMIZING RESURGENCE OF DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR USING
BEHAVIORAL MOMENTUM THEORY

WAYNE W. FISHER, BRIAN D. GREER, ASHLEY M. FUHRMAN, VALDEEP SAINI
AND CHRISTINA A. SIMMONS

UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER’S MUNROE-MEYER INSTITUTE

The resurgence of destructive behavior can occur during functional communication training (FCT)
if the alternative response contacts a challenge (e.g., extinction). Behavioral momentum theory
(BMT) suggests that refinements to FCT could mitigate resurgence of destructive behavior during
periods of extinction. Following a functional analysis and treatment with FCT, we combined three
refinements to FCT (i.e., the use of a lean schedule of reinforcement for destructive behavior during
baseline, a lean schedule for the alternative response during FCT, and an increase in the duration of
treatment) and compared the magnitude of resurgence relative to a condition in which FCT was
implemented in a traditional manner. Results suggested that the combination of these three refine-
ments to FCT was successful in decreasing the resurgence of destructive behavior during an extinc-
tion challenge. We discuss the implications of these findings, as well as areas for future research.
Key words: behavioral momentum theory, destructive behavior, functional communication

training, relapse, resurgence, translational research

Epidemiological studies and meta-analyses
have revealed that interventions based on the
results of a functional analysis (FA; Iwata, Dor-
sey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman [1982/1994])
are more effective than similar behavioral inter-
ventions not based on the results of an FA
(Campbell, 2003; Didden, Duker, & Korzilius,
1997; Iwata, Pace, et al., 1994). One such
intervention informed by the results of an FA is
functional communication training (FCT),
which combines differential reinforcement of
alternative behavior (DRA) with extinction to
teach an alternative form of communication
(i.e., functional communication response
[FCR]) that replaces destructive behavior.
Numerous studies have shown FCT to be an
effective strategy for decreasing destructive
behavior reinforced by social consequences

(Carr & Durand, 1985; Greer, Fisher, Saini,
Owen, & Jones, 2016; Hagopian, Fisher,
Sullivan, Acquisto, & LeBlanc, 1998; Kurtz
et al., 2003; Matson, Dixon, & Matson, 2005;
Rooker, Jessel, Kurtz, & Hagopian, 2013).
Despite its widespread effectiveness, FCT is

not without limitations. For example, inadver-
tent lapses in treatment integrity may result in
the FCR contacting unplanned and extended
periods of extinction (e.g., caregivers are
unable to provide the reinforcer because they
are on the telephone; Fisher et al., 1993).
Results of recent studies suggest that these sit-
uations may increase the likelihood of treat-
ment relapse, wherein destructive behavior
increases following successful treatment with
FCT when the FCR contacts extinction
(Fuhrman, Fisher, & Greer, 2016; Mace et al.,
2010; Volkert, Lerman, Call, & Trosclair-Las-
serre, 2009; Wacker et al., 2011). Researchers
call this form of treatment relapse resurgence,
defined as an increase in a response previously
reduced via alternative reinforcement and
extinction (e.g., FCT) when alternative rein-
forcement terminates.

Grants 5R01HD079113 and 5R01HD083214 from
the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development provided partial support for this research.
Address correspondence to Brian D. Greer, Center for

Autism Spectrum Disorders, 985450 Nebraska Medical
Center, Omaha, Nebraska 68198. E-mail: brian.greer@
unmc.edu
doi: 10.1002/jaba.499

JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2018, 51, 831–853 NUMBER 4 (FALL)

© 2018 The Authors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society
for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (SEAB)
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction
in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Volkert et al. (2009) observed resurgence of
destructive behavior in four of five participants
when the FCR contacted extinction or a thin
schedule of reinforcement (i.e., abruptly transi-
tioning from fixed-ratio [FR] 1 to FR 12) fol-
lowing FCT. Mace et al. (2010) observed
greater resurgence and persistence of destructive
behavior following treatment with FCT plus
extinction than following extinction alone.
Finally, Wacker et al. (2011) showed patterns
of resurgence similar to those of Volkert
et al. and Mace et al. when the FCR went
unreinforced during extinction probes that fol-
lowed phases of FCT.
The data from these and other studies reveal

a significant untoward side effect of FCT—
although FCT tends to result in an immediate
reduction in the level of destructive behavior,
providing alternative reinforcement (e.g., for
the FCR) can increase the likelihood of resur-
gence of destructive behavior if alternative rein-
forcement is later suspended (e.g., when the
FCR contacts periods of extinction). It is
important to note that this unfortunate side
effect is not readily observable during the initial
stages of FCT but can become increasingly
problematic when behavior analysts attempt to
generalize FCT treatment effects to caregivers
in the individual’s home, school, and commu-
nity settings. In these contexts, caregivers may
not adhere to the FCT procedures, and the
newly learned FCR may go unreinforced for
extended periods. Results from these initial
clinical and translational investigations of resur-
gence following treatment with FCT suggest
that it may be prudent to periodically program
times throughout treatment during which rein-
forcement for the FCR is temporarily sus-
pended to evaluate treatment durability
(Fuhrman et al., 2016; Greer, Fisher,
Romani, & Saini, 2016; Nevin & Wacker,
2013; Wacker et al., 2011).
Many researchers studying treatment relapse

have employed behavioral momentum theory
(BMT) as a guiding metaphor to conceptualize

the behavioral processes that contribute to the
resurgence of destructive behavior (Fuhrman,
et al., 2016; Greer, Fisher, Romani, et al.,
2016; Mace et al., 2010; Marsteller &
St. Peter, 2014; Nevin & Shahan, 2011;
Nevin & Wacker, 2013; Pritchard, Hoerger, &
Mace, 2014; Wacker et al., 2011; 2013). In
the behavioral momentum metaphor, the
momentum of a response is a function of its
reinforcement rate (which is equivalent to the
mass of a moving object) times its baseline
response rate (which is equivalent to the veloc-
ity of a moving object). In particular, an
increasing number of authors have applied the
quantitative models of resurgence developed by
Shahan and Sweeney (2011) that predict the
degree to which target responding
(e.g., destructive behavior) resurges following
treatments composed of extinction and alterna-
tive reinforcement (e.g., FCT, noncontingent
reinforcement). Nevin and Shahan (2011) later
presented the following adapted model for
applied researchers, students, and practitioners:

Bt
Bo

¼ 10
−t c + dr + pRað Þ

r + Rað Þ0:5

� �
: ð1Þ

Quantitative models like those developed by
Shahan and Sweeney and discussed in detail by
Nevin and Shahan provide guidance on poten-
tial treatment refinements that may improve
clinical outcomes by mitigating or preventing
treatment relapse in the form of resurgence of
destructive behavior. That is, Equation (1)
makes specific and precise predictions about
how the parameters of reinforcement during
baseline and treatment affect the probability of
the target response during each treatment ses-
sion and each session in which alternative rein-
forcement is suspended or terminated,
including whether resurgence of destructive
behavior is likely to occur.
Equation (1) predicts responding at different

times in extinction as a proportion of baseline

WAYNE W. FISHER et al.832

responding (BtBo); Bt represents the rate of the
target response at time t in extinction, and B0
represents the mean rate of the target response
during baseline. According to Equation (1),
multiple variables affect the likelihood of
destructive behavior when extinction is in place
for both destructive behavior and the FCR fol-
lowing treatment with FCT. First, the parame-
ter c represents the effects of terminating the
contingency between destructive behavior and
its reinforcer. Second, the parameter
d represents the discriminability of the change
from contingent reinforcement to extinction
for destructive behavior, which Nevin,
McLean, and Grace (2001) also have called the
generalization decrement resulting from rein-
forcer omission. In Equation (1), parameter
d scales the disruptive impact of terminating
baseline reinforcement when FCT begins (with
the rate of baseline reinforcement represented
in Equation (1) by the parameter r). Third, the
reductive effects of contingency termination
and contingency discriminability on responding
increase with the passage of time (captured by
parameter t).
Behavioral momentum theory predicts that

whereas operant extinction reduces the target
response, the respondent relation between rein-
forcers and the prevailing context increases the
persistence of the target response. For example,
BMT predicts that a high rate of reinforcement
for destructive behavior in a given context dur-
ing baseline, captured by r in Equation (1),
increases the persistence of that response when
it contacts extinction.
It is important to note that BMT predicts that

the respondent relation between reinforcers and
the prevailing context increases the persistence of
destructive behavior, even when the reinforcers
are delivered contingent on an alternative
response (as in FCT) or on a time-based schedule
(as in noncontingent reinforcement). That is,
alternative reinforcement (e.g., delivered contin-
gent on an FCR) acts to suppress destructive

behavior during treatment, but it also may
strengthen the persistence of destructive behavior
through the respondent pairings of reinforcers
and the stimulus context. However, this
strengthening effect becomes apparent only
when alternative reinforcement ceases and its
suppressive effects are therefore no longer in
place. Both basic studies involving nonhuman
species and translational studies involving indi-
viduals with developmental disabilities have dem-
onstrated this strengthening effect of alternative
reinforcement (e.g., Mace et al., 2010; Nevin,
Tota, Torquato, & Shull, 1990). Equation (1)
captures the effects of alternative reinforcement
with the parameter Ra.
To summarize, Equation (1) predicts greater

resurgence following (a) relatively higher rates
of reinforcement (r) in baseline, (b) relatively
higher rates of alternative reinforcement (Ra) in
treatment, (c) short exposures to treatment (t),
and (d) less discriminable transitions from rein-
forcement to extinction (d). These same predic-
tions also imply procedural refinements to FCT
that should minimize the resurgence of destruc-
tive behavior during periods when the FCR
contacts either unplanned periods of extinction
(e.g., when a parent is busy and unable to rein-
force the child’s FCRs) or planned periods of
extinction (e.g., when an experimenter intro-
duces an extinction challenge). For example,
Equation (1) predicts greater resurgence during
an extinction challenge if destructive behavior
results in a high reinforcement rate in baseline
(i.e., a large value of r).
In clinical practice, destructive behavior is

often associated with a high rate of reinforce-
ment in baseline because clinicians typically
provide the functional reinforcer for destructive
behavior on an FR 1 schedule to mimic the
contingencies programmed in the correspond-
ing test condition of the FA. Equation (1) sug-
gests that this practice of arranging a dense
reinforcement schedule in baseline will increase
the likelihood of observing resurgence if the
FCR later results in extinction. Therefore, one

833MINIMIZING RESURGENCE USING BMT

potential refinement of FCT based on Equa-
tion (1) would be to provide a lean schedule of
reinforcement for destructive behavior during
baseline (i.e., reducing the value of r).
Another refinement of FCT suggested by

Equation (1) involves the rate of alternative
reinforcement delivered for the FCR during
FCT. Equation (1) predicts greater resurgence
when the FCR produces a high rate of alterna-
tive reinforcement (i.e., a large value of Ra). In
clinical practice, FCT often begins with an FR
1 schedule in which each instance of the FCR
results in the delivery of the functional rein-
forcer. Such dense reinforcement schedules pro-
duce a high rate of alternative reinforcement,
which according to Equation (1) increases the
likelihood of resurgence. Thus, an additional
refinement of FCT would be to provide rein-
forcement for the FCR on a lean schedule of
reinforcement during FCT (i.e., reducing the
value of Ra).
Equation (1) also predicts differential levels

of resurgence following short and long expo-
sures to FCT, with greater resurgence following
treatments implemented in a fewer number of
sessions or shorter amount of time (i.e., a small
value of t). In clinical practice, behavior ana-
lysts may too quickly assess for the generaliza-
tion of FCT treatment effects, doing so once
the treatment appears effective in the context in
which it was first implemented. Therefore,
another refinement of FCT would be to pro-
vide a longer exposure to (or greater dosage of )
treatment than standard of care would other-
wise suggest (i.e., increasing the value of t).
To summarize, Equation (1) identifies at

least three refinements to FCT that should each
reduce the likelihood of resurgence of destruc-
tive behavior if the newly acquired FCR con-
tacts periods of extinction. Programming a lean
schedule of reinforcement in baseline and
throughout FCT, as well as increasing the dos-
age of FCT by conducting additional sessions
of treatment should minimize the likelihood of
resurgence. However, Equation (1) further

suggests that combining these three refinements
within a single evaluation of FCT
(i.e., arranging a low rate of reinforcement in
baseline followed by a lengthy exposure to
FCT implemented with a low rate of alterna-
tive reinforcement) should result in less resur-
gence than would any of these refinements
implemented alone. In the present study, we
combined these three refinements to FCT and
compared the degree to which destructive
behavior resurged following FCT procedures
with and without these three refinements.

GENERAL METHOD

Four individuals referred to a university-
based severe behavior disorders clinic partici-
pated. Erica, a 16-year-old girl, Corey, a
3-year-old boy, Jaden, an 8-year-old boy, and
Derek, a 7-year-old boy, each were diagnosed
with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Erica
also carried the diagnosis of attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). All partici-
pants engaged in self-injurious behavior (SIB)
and aggression. Corey, Jaden, and Derek also
engaged in property destruction. All partici-
pants communicated using utterances of
one-to-four words. We conducted all study
procedures under the oversight of a pediatrics
institutional review board and followed the
safety precautions described by Betz and Fisher
(2011) to protect the safety of the participants.

Settings and Materials
All sessions took place in 3-m by 3-m ther-

apy rooms equipped with a two-way intercom
system and a one-way observation window.
Therapy rooms for Corey, Jaden, and Derek
contained padding on the walls and floors to
minimize the risk of injury associated with their
SIB. Furniture (e.g., table, chairs, desk)
remained present in the therapy rooms for all
participants except Derek. Sessions for Derek
occurred in an empty therapy room due to the
risk of injury associated with his topography of

WAYNE W. FISHER et al.834

SIB (i.e., slamming knees and elbows against
hard surfaces).

Response Measurement, Interobserver
Agreement, and Blinding Procedures
Trained observers collected data on laptop

computers behind the observation window. We
collected frequency data on SIB, aggression,
property destruction, and the FCR. Self-
injurious behavior included self-biting, body
slamming, self-hitting, self-scratching, and head
banging. Aggression included hitting, kicking,
pushing, pinching, scratching, or throwing
objects at the therapist. Property destruction
included hitting or kicking furniture or the
walls or floor of the therapy room, throwing
objects not meant to be thrown (but not at the
therapist), tearing one’s own clothing, swiping
materials, and turning over furniture. Func-
tional communication responses consisted of the
individual touching (Erica) or exchanging
(Corey, Jaden, and Derek) an index-sized card
that contained a picture of the child consuming
their functional reinforcer (i.e., the FCR card).
We obtained interobserver agreement (IOA)

by having a second independent observer collect
data simultaneously with the primary data col-
lector on a minimum of 26% of sessions. For
the experiment proper, we required the second
observer to be blind to the study purpose and
hypotheses for a minimum of 27% of the ses-
sions for which we collected IOA. We divided
each session into 10-s intervals and scored an
agreement for each interval in which both
observers measured the same number of
responses (i.e., exact agreement). We then
summed the number of agreement intervals and
divided by the number of agreement intervals
plus disagreement intervals. Finally, we con-
verted each quotient to a percentage. We calcu-
lated IOA on at least 33% of sessions of each
participant’s functional analysis and initial FCT
evaluation. Coefficients averaged 98% (range,
67%-100%) for Erica, 99% (range, 80%-

100%) for Corey, 99% (range, 87%-100%) for
Jaden, and 97% (range, 50%-100%) for Derek.
We calculated IOA on at least 26% of sessions
for each participant in the experiment proper.
Coefficients averaged 97% (range, 73%-100%)
for Erica, 98% (range, 72%-100%) for Corey,
99% (range, 67%-100%) for Jaden, and 95%
(range, 50%-100%) for Derek.

Functional Analysis and Initial Evaluation
of Functional Communication Training
Functional analysis. We conducted FAs of

each participant’s destructive behavior to iden-
tify its maintaining variables using procedures
similar to those described by Iwata, Dorsey,
et al. (1982/1994). Our procedures differed
from Iwata, Dorsey, et al. in that (a) we did
not include avoidance contingencies in the
escape condition, (b) we included a tangible
(test) condition (Day, Rea, Schussler, Larsen, &
Johnson, 1988), (c) we equated reinforcer-
access durations across test conditions (Fisher,
Piazza, & Chiang, 1996), and (d) we began
each FA by screening for the presence of auto-
matically reinforced destructive behavior
(Querim et al., 2013). In some test and control
conditions of the FA, we also used the results
of a paired-stimulus preference assessment to
identify the stimuli used in those conditions
(Fisher et al., 1992). A trained therapist con-
ducted all FA sessions with the exception that
Corey’s mother and caregiver conducted por-
tions of his FA. Each FA session lasted 5 min.
In the alone condition (Erica only), the par-

ticipant remained alone in the therapy room
without any toys or materials. Destructive
behavior produced no programmed conse-
quence. In the ignore condition (Corey, Jaden,
and Derek), the participant and therapist
remained in the therapy room together without
any toys or materials. The therapist ignored all
instances of destructive and appropriate behav-
ior throughout the session. Prior to the atten-
tion condition, the therapist provided the

835MINIMIZING RESURGENCE USING BMT

participant with 1-min access to physical and
vocal attention (e.g., playing a game and pro-
viding high fives). The attention condition
began with the therapist withdrawing and
diverting their attention to a magazine. The
participant retained free access to a low-
preference toy throughout the attention con-
dition, and destructive behavior resulted in
the therapist returning their attention to the
child for 20 s. In the escape condition, the
therapist delivered academic or household-
related demands using a least-to-most (i.e.,
verbal, model, physical) prompting hierarchy.
Destructive behavior produced a 20-s break
from instructions in which the therapist
removed all instructional materials. Prior to
the tangible condition, the therapist provided
1-min access to a high-preference toy, and the
tangible condition began with the therapist
restricting access to that toy. The therapist
redelivered the high-preference toy for 20 s
contingent on destructive behavior. In the
toy-play condition, the participant had contin-
uous access to a high-preference toy, and the
therapist provided physical and vocal attention
at least every 30 s. The therapist provided no
programmed consequences for destructive
behavior.
Initial evaluation of FCT. We conducted an

initial evaluation of FCT using a reversal design
to determine the effectiveness of FCT as a
treatment for each participant’s destructive
behavior following the completion of each par-
ticipant’s FA. We treated the tangible function
of Erica’s, Jaden’s, and Derek’s destructive
behavior and the attention function of Corey’s
destructive behavior in this and all subsequent
implementations of FCT.
Baseline. The baseline condition of the initial

FCT evaluation was identical to the tangible
(Erica, Jaden, and Derek) or attention (Corey)
condition of the FA. Sessions lasted 5 min.
Pretraining (data not displayed). Following

the initial baseline phase, we used a
progressive-prompt delay (0 s, 2 s, 5 s, 10 s) to

teach each participant to emit the FCR to gain
access to the reinforcer maintaining destructive
behavior. Instances of the destructive response
resulted in no programmed consequences
(i.e., extinction). Each 10-trial session consisted
of the therapist presenting the establishing
operation for destructive behavior (e.g., by
withholding the preferred toy or attention),
prompting the FCR using physical guidance if
necessary, and delivering the functional rein-
forcer for 20 s on an FR 1 schedule. The FCR
for all participants consisted of touching (Erica)
or exchanging (Corey, Jaden, and Derek) a pic-
ture card that contained an image of the partic-
ipant consuming the functional reinforcer.
Delays to the therapist prompting the FCR
increased every two consecutive sessions with
no destructive behavior. Pretraining terminated
following two consecutive sessions with no
destructive behavior and independent FCRs in
80% or greater of trials. We used a 3-s change-
over delay (COD; Herrnstein, 1961) to prevent
adventitious reinforcement of destructive
behavior. If destructive behavior occurred
within 3 s of the participant emitting the FCR,
the therapist withheld the reinforcer until the
participant emitted another FCR without
destructive behavior occurring within 3 s. Pre-
training session durations varied depending on
the prompt delay, as well as on the presence
and efficiency of independent FCRs.
FCT. We implemented FCT using proce-

dures identical to pretraining except that we
discontinued all prompts to emit the FCR, and
sessions lasted 5 min.

Results
Erica (top left panel of Figure 1) displayed

no destructive behavior in the final four
consecutive-ignore sessions. Erica then engaged
in elevated rates of destructive behavior during
the tangible condition and near-zero rates in
the attention and toy-play conditions. Because
we observed variable rates of destructive

WAYNE W. FISHER et al.836

behavior across sessions of the escape condition,
we conducted a pairwise analysis with the
escape and toy-play conditions. Variability per-
sisted following this change in experimental
design, at which point we conducted a reversal
design between the escape and toy-play condi-
tions to better determine whether escape from
demands reinforced Erica’s destructive behav-
ior. Erica emitted higher rates of destructive
behavior in the escape condition relative to the
toy-play condition in the reversal design. Erica’s
FA results suggest that access to preferred tangi-
ble items and escape from demands reinforced
her destructive behavior. We treated the tangi-
ble function of Erica’s destructive behavior
using the procedures described in this paper

and later treated her escape function using a
separate protocol.
Corey (top right panel of Figure 1) displayed

low, variable rates of destructive behavior across
only the attention and toy-play conditions of
the multielement FA. Between FA sessions,
however, therapists observed that Corey fre-
quently engaged in destructive behavior with
his mother and caregiver. Therefore, we had
each of these individuals serve as therapist in
subsequent FA sessions and sequenced those
sessions based on the availability of each indi-
vidual. We observed consistently elevated rates
of destructive behavior in the tangible condi-
tion across both Corey’s mother and caregiver.
We then returned to the therapist-conducted

20 40 60 80

0

2

4

6

8

Erica

20 40 60 80

0

1

2

3

4

Corey

Mom
Caregiver

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0

1

2

3

4

Jaden

5 10 15 20 25 30 35

0

5

10

15

Derek

Attention

Toy Play

Ignore

Tangible

Escape

D
E

S
T

R
U

C
T

IV
E

B
E

H
A

V
IO

R
P

E
R

M
IN

SESSIONS

Figure 1. Functional-analysis results for Erica, Corey, Jaden, and Derek. A therapist conducted all sessions with
Corey other than in those phases labeled otherwise.

837MINIMIZING RESURGENCE USING BMT

multielement FA and replicated this same pat-
tern of responding. Due to the variable rates of
Corey’s destructive behavior across individuals
in the attention condition, we conducted a
pairwise analysis with the attention and toy-
play conditions and observed an increasing
trend in the rates of destructive behavior in the
attention condition and no instances in the
toy-play condition. Corey’s FA data suggest
that access to preferred tangible items and adult
attention reinforced his destructive behavior.
We treated the attention function of Corey’s
destructive behavior using the procedures
described in this paper and addressed his tangi-
ble function using a separate protocol. We tar-
geted the attention function of Corey’s
destructive behavior to increase the variety of
functions targeted across participants.
Jaden (bottom left panel of Figure 1) dis-

played no destructive behavior in the final four
consecutive-ignore sessions preceding his multi-
element FA. Thereafter, Jaden engaged in
destructive behavior during the tangible, atten-
tion, and escape conditions with consistently
elevated rates in only the final three sessions of
the tangible condition. Jaden displayed no
destructive behavior in the toy-play condition.
A pairwise analysis between attention and toy-
play conditions produced no destructive behav-
ior. Jaden’s FA results suggest that access to
preferred tangible items maintained his destruc-
tive behavior.
Derek (bottom right panel of Figure 1) emit-

ted near-zero rates of destructive behavior in
the final six consecutive-ignore sessions that
preceded his multielement FA. Derek’s multie-
lement FA produced consistently elevated rates
of destructive behavior in both the tangible and
escape conditions and no instances in the toy-
play condition. Derek’s FA results suggest that
access to both preferred tangible items and
escape from demands maintained his destruc-
tive behavior. We treated the tangible function
of Derek’s destructive behavior using the proce-
dures described in this paper and addressed his

escape function using a separate protocol. We
targeted the tangible function of Derek’s
destructive behavior due to observing more
consistent rates of responding in this condition
relative to the escape condition.
All four participants displayed elevated rates

of destructive behavior prior to FCT pretrain-
ing. During FCT pretraining (not displayed in
Figure 2), all participants engaged in low rates
of destructive behavior and increasingly high
rates of independent FCRs. Pretraining lasted
23 sessions for Erica, 9 sessions for Corey,
14 sessions for Jaden, and 17 sessions for
Derek. Following pretraining, we observed
marked reductions in rates of destructive
behavior for all four participants and high rates
of the FCR during FCT; these effects were
then replicated.

BMT-INFORMED REFINEMENTS
TO FCT

We evaluated the combined effects of rein-
forcement rate (during baseline and treatment)
and the dosage of treatment on the resurgence
of destructive behavior by programming a lean
schedule of reinforcement for destructive
behavior in baseline, a lean schedule of rein-
forcement for the FCR during FCT, and triple
the number of FCT sessions in the test condi-
tion. We tested for resurgence within the con-
text of a multielement ABC resurgence
paradigm in which we reinforced destructive
behavior in baseline (Phase A), placed destruc-
tive behavior on extinction and reinforced the
FCR during FCT (Phase B), and then arranged
extinction for both the destructive behavior and
the FCR in the final phase (Phase C). Across
these three phases, we programmed two sepa-
rate conditions (i.e., lean–long [test condition],
dense–short [control condition]). In the lean–
long condition, we delivered a lean schedule of
reinforcement across baseline and FCT phases,
and we provided a longer exposure to FCT
(i.e., a larger dose) than in the dense–short

WAYNE W. FISHER et al.838

condition. By contrast, we …