EDF5684 Chap.11 Extinction
Extinction
Extinction withholds the specific reinforcer that previously maintained a response. This chapter distinguishes functional extinction from a visible procedure such as planned ignoring, compares arrangements for behaviour maintained by attention, escape or automatic consequences, and explains bursts, spontaneous recovery and resistance to extinction.
Ethical planning adds alternative reinforcement, monitoring, social validity and clear review criteria.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Extinction as withholding a maintaining reinforcer
- 02
Procedural ignoring versus functional extinction
- 03
Attention, escape and automatic reinforcement functions
- 04
Extinction bursts and response variability
- 05
Spontaneous recovery and resistance to extinction
- 06
Alternative reinforcement, safeguards and social validity
Worked example · free
Audit a planned-ignoring proposal
- +1Define the calling-out response and confirm that adult attention is the maintaining consequence.
- +1Specify which attention contingency will change rather than using the broad instruction ignore.
- +1Teach an efficient alternative signal that can appropriately access attention.
- +1Arrange timely reinforcement for the alternative response.
- +1Monitor possible bursts, variability, distress and spontaneous recovery.
- +1Coordinate implementation so occasional reinforcement does not strengthen persistence.
- +1Set safety, social-validity and review criteria before use.
Key terms
- Functional Extinction
- Withholding the particular reinforcer that previously maintained a response.
- Planned Ignoring
- A procedural form that withholds some social attention and may or may not match behavioural function.
- Extinction Burst
- A temporary increase in rate, intensity, duration or variability after reinforcement is withheld.
- Spontaneous Recovery
- The later reappearance of a response after it declined under extinction.
- Resistance to Extinction
- Persistence of responding after the maintaining reinforcer stops occurring.
Extinction FAQ
Why is ignoring not always extinction?
Ignoring changes social attention, but the response may be maintained by escape, an item or automatic consequences. Functional extinction must withhold the identified maintaining reinforcer. A visible procedure alone cannot establish that the relevant contingency changed.
What is an extinction burst?
It is a temporary increase or variation in responding after a previously available reinforcer is withheld. The term describes a possible pattern, not a guarantee and not a reason to continue an unsafe or unacceptable procedure without review.
Why reinforce an alternative during extinction?
An alternative gives the person another effective way to obtain a meaningful outcome. Without it, the plan may remove a working communication pattern without building a replacement. The alternative should be accessible, efficient and matched to the relevant function.
How can I distinguish extinction from other decreases?
Compare the response-consequence relation before and after the change. Extinction requires a previously reinforcing consequence to stop following the response. Fatigue, satiation, punishment and lack of opportunity can also reduce responding, but they imply different histories or current arrangements.
Identify the functional reinforcer, verify that it is withheld contingently and inspect the longer pattern rather than one observation. Possible bursts or recovery can support an interpretation but are not required. The contingency evidence, not the shape of a declining line alone, decides the classification.
Assessment move
Start every extinction example by naming the reinforcer that maintained the response. Then state exactly how that response-consequence relation changes. Compare attention, escape and automatic functions so planned ignoring does not become a universal answer. Draw a response curve with a possible burst, decline and recovery, but remember that real patterns vary.
For applied questions, add alternative reinforcement, side-effect monitoring, social validity, consistency and safety criteria to the technical classification. Build a before-and-after contingency table for each example. The first row should show the response producing its historical reinforcer; the second should show that same consequence no longer following the response.
If the history is absent, avoid calling simple nonreinforcement extinction. Create matched cases for attention, escape, tangible and automatic functions, and describe exactly what must change in each. This prevents planned ignoring from becoming a universal procedure.
Graph hypothetical data with clearly labelled axes and mark possible bursts, variability and spontaneous recovery as outcomes that may occur, not diagnostic requirements. Compare the same declining pattern produced by extinction, punishment, satiation and fatigue, then identify the contingency evidence needed to distinguish them.
For application review, add an alternative response that contacts the relevant outcome efficiently. Compare its effort, delay and reinforcement schedule with the target response. Write procedural-integrity and safety criteria, including what staff do if side effects or risk exceed the planned threshold.
Monitor beyond the first decline and across settings because intermittent re-exposure to the old reinforcer can sustain persistence. End with a plain-language explanation that distinguishes the technical procedure from withholding all support. Extinction changes a specific maintaining relation; a humane plan also teaches and reinforces a workable alternative while attending to consent, social validity and broader effects.
Working through Extinction in EDF5684? Sia is AskSia’s AI Education tutor — ask any EDF5684 Extinction question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how EDF5684 is taught and assessed. Read this chapter free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.
