Behavioral Resurgence: Why Old Habits Return

The Core Definition of Resurgence

The psychological phenomenon known as resurgence is defined as the return of a previously reinforced and then extinguished behavior when an alternative, functionally equivalent behavior is also subjected to the process of extinction. This concept is fundamental to the study of behavioral persistence and the mechanisms underlying relapse, particularly within the framework of learning theory and applied behavior analysis. Unlike simple extinction, which focuses on the gradual decline of a single response due to the cessation of reinforcement, resurgence involves a three-stage sequence: initial acquisition and reinforcement of Behavior A, followed by the acquisition and reinforcement of a new Behavior B, and finally, the extinction of both behaviors, culminating in the unexpected return of Behavior A. The defining characteristic of resurgence is that the return of the original behavior (A) is directly triggered by the failure of the replacement behavior (B) to secure reinforcement, illustrating a hierarchical response selection process rooted in an organism’s learning history.

Resurgence highlights a critical distinction between merely suppressing a behavior and completely eliminating it from the organism’s repertoire. When Behavior A is extinguished, it does not disappear entirely; rather, its probability of occurrence is significantly reduced because the environmental contingencies have changed. Introducing and reinforcing Behavior B temporarily fills the functional void left by the loss of A’s reinforcement. However, when the environment becomes generally non-reinforcing—meaning both A and B are met with extinction—the organism often reverts to the response that was historically the strongest or most proximal choice when faced with similar motivational states. Understanding this mechanism is vital because it explains why therapeutic interventions that successfully replace maladaptive behaviors can often fail if the environmental support for the replacement behavior is not maintained indefinitely.

Fundamental Mechanisms and Operant Conditioning

Resurgence is a specialized phenomenon rooted firmly in the principles of operant conditioning, first systematically explored by B.F. Skinner. The core mechanism involves a sequential exposure to reinforcement and withdrawal across two distinct responses that often serve the same function (e.g., seeking attention or acquiring a specific item). The initial phase establishes a robust link between Behavior A and a specific reinforcer. In the second phase, a replacement behavior, Behavior B, is taught and reinforced, leading to the suppression of A through differential reinforcement of an alternative behavior (DRA) and the direct extinction of A. The final, critical phase occurs when Behavior B is also extinguished. When the subject is now in a context where they historically received reinforcement but are currently receiving none for the newly learned behavior (B), the system reverts to the previously successful, though currently non-reinforced, behavior (A).

The intensity of the resurged behavior is often proportional to the historical strength of the initial reinforcement schedule applied to Behavior A, meaning behaviors that were strongly and consistently reinforced originally tend to resurge more intensely and quickly. Furthermore, the functional equivalence of the two behaviors is key; if Behavior A and Behavior B are attempts to achieve the same outcome (e.g., escaping a demand, gaining access to a preferred item), the likelihood of resurgence is significantly increased upon the failure of the replacement strategy. Researchers hypothesize that the organism’s response selection is governed by a hierarchy of previously successful responses; when the currently preferred response (B) fails, the organism rapidly scans its history for the next most successful response (A), leading to its temporary return before generalized extinction fully takes hold.

Historical Development and Key Researchers

While the foundational concepts of reinforcement and extinction were thoroughly documented by behaviorists like B.F. Skinner in the mid-20th century, the specific phenomenon of resurgence was formalized and isolated much later through detailed experimental analysis. Early experiments focused heavily on classical extinction curves, but the specific pattern of relapse involving replacement behaviors gained dedicated attention starting in the 1980s and 1990s. Key researchers such as William K. Redner, Kenneth J. Lattal, and John G. Wanchisen conducted seminal studies, primarily using non-human subjects (like pigeons and rats) in controlled operant chambers, to meticulously map the precise conditions under which the original behavior returns. These studies demonstrated conclusively that the return of the initial response was not merely random variability but a systematic, predictable outcome of the extinction of the alternative response.

The development of the resurgence concept was crucial because it offered a more nuanced explanation for behavioral relapse than simpler models like spontaneous recovery. Spontaneous recovery, identified much earlier, explains the temporary return of an extinguished behavior merely due to the passage of time or a change in environmental context. Resurgence, however, provided an explanation tied directly to the failure of therapeutic or behavioral management strategies—specifically, the failure to maintain reinforcement for the newly trained replacement behavior. This shift in focus from temporal factors to contingency management profoundly influenced fields requiring long-term behavior change, cementing resurgence as a critical concept in the transition from basic laboratory findings to applied clinical practice.

A Practical Illustration of Resurgence

To illustrate the concept of resurgence, consider a common scenario involving a child seeking parental attention, a highly valuable social reinforcement. Initially, the child learns that screaming (Behavior A) effectively gains the parent’s immediate attention. This behavior is strongly reinforced. Recognizing that screaming is maladaptive, the parent implements a behavioral plan: they extinguish screaming by ignoring it completely, while simultaneously teaching the child to politely tap the parent’s shoulder and say “Excuse me” (Behavior B) when they want attention. Behavior B is immediately and generously reinforced every time it occurs. Over several weeks, screaming (A) stops, and tapping (B) becomes the dominant, reinforced method for seeking attention.

The critical resurgence phase begins when the parent becomes stressed, preoccupied, or inconsistent. For example, if the parent starts ignoring the polite tapping (B) because they are too busy on the phone or working, Behavior B enters extinction. The child, needing attention (the functional goal), finds that their current, polite strategy is no longer working. Since the child’s learning history dictates that screaming (A) was the next best option before B was introduced, the child will likely revert to the highly intense, previously successful, but extinguished behavior of screaming. The return of the screaming behavior is not due to a change in context or the passage of time, but specifically because the replacement behavior (tapping) failed to produce the necessary reinforcement in the moment.

Step-by-Step Application of the Principle

Analyzing the practical example above reveals the systematic, predictable steps required for resurgence to manifest. The process can be systematically broken down into an ordered series of behavioral contingencies that dictate the outcome:

1. Phase 1: Initial Acquisition of Behavior A. The target behavior (e.g., screaming) is highly reinforced, establishing a strong behavioral baseline. This ensures that A becomes the dominant, preferred response for achieving a specific functional outcome (e.g., attention).
2. Phase 2: Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior B (and Extinction of A). The replacement behavior (e.g., polite tapping) is introduced and reinforced heavily, while the original behavior (A) is simultaneously put on extinction. This differential reinforcement procedure successfully suppresses A and establishes B as the current preferred response.
3. Phase 3: Extinction of Behavior B. The environmental contingency changes, and the replacement behavior (B) is no longer reinforced. This creates a state of behavioral uncertainty and frustration as the currently active response fails to yield the desired outcome.
4. Phase 4: Resurgence. Due to the failure of B, the organism reverts to the next available, historically successful response from its repertoire—which is Behavior A. The frequency of A temporarily increases significantly before generalized extinction eventually takes hold across all responses.

This step-by-step mechanism confirms that resurgence is a direct consequence of eliminating reinforcement for a replacement behavior, highlighting the instability inherent in extinction-based procedures unless long-term reinforcement for desired behaviors is maintained.

Significance in Behavioral Science and Therapy

The understanding of resurgence holds profound significance for both theoretical behavioral science and applied therapeutic settings. Theoretically, it challenges the simplistic view that extinction permanently erases learned associations. Instead, resurgence suggests that learned behaviors, particularly those that were previously highly effective, are merely inhibited or suppressed, remaining dormant and ready to re-emerge when conditions become non-reinforcing for current strategies. This informs sophisticated models of learning that account for the persistence and competitive nature of behavioral repertoires. It underscores that learning is an additive process; new learning suppresses old learning, but the old learning remains accessible.

In applied settings, particularly in clinical psychology and Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), the concept of resurgence is critical for developing effective relapse prevention strategies. Therapists must recognize that simply teaching a replacement behavior is insufficient. The therapeutic goal must shift to ensuring that the environment consistently supports the replacement behavior through continuous or highly predictable reinforcement, especially during periods of high stress or transition when environmental reinforcement may naturally weaken. By anticipating resurgence, clinicians can proactively institute booster sessions or maintenance protocols designed to prevent the extinction of the newly acquired, adaptive responses, thereby minimizing the likelihood of the return of problematic behaviors.

Connections to Related Behavioral Phenomena

Resurgence is often grouped with other related behavioral phenomena that describe the return of extinguished responses, including spontaneous recovery and renewal, yet it is mechanistically distinct. While all three involve the reappearance of a behavior that was previously suppressed, the trigger for resurgence is unique.

• Spontaneous Recovery: This refers to the temporary, time-dependent return of an extinguished response following a period of rest, without any change in experimental contingencies. The strength of the response diminishes again quickly if reinforcement is still withheld.
• Renewal: This phenomenon describes the return of an extinguished response when the organism is returned to the original learning context (A-B-A or A-B-B renewal). The return is context-specific, implying that extinction learning is highly specific to the environment in which it occurred.
• Resurgence: Distinctly, resurgence is triggered by the extinction of an alternative, reinforced behavior (B). It is not dependent on the passage of time (like spontaneous recovery) or a change in physical environment (like renewal), but rather on the failure of the subject’s current, preferred behavioral strategy to yield a previously established outcome.

This distinction is crucial for treatment planning, as identifying the specific mechanism of relapse (time, context, or failure of alternative response) dictates the most appropriate intervention strategy. Resurgence points squarely toward the need for robust, long-term maintenance of reinforcement for functional replacement behaviors.

Broader Context and Psychological Subfields

The study of resurgence falls primarily under the umbrella of Behaviorism and Learning Theory, which are foundational subfields of experimental psychology. Behaviorism emphasizes the study of observable behavior and its relationship to environmental stimuli and consequences, making resurgence a core concept for understanding how reinforcement schedules shape and maintain complex response patterns. More specifically, resurgence is of intense interest within the domain of Comparative Psychology, where researchers study species differences in learning and extinction resistance, and Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), where the principles are used to treat clinically significant behavioral issues, such as self-injurious behavior or aggression in individuals with developmental disabilities.

Furthermore, the implications of resurgence extend into health psychology and clinical treatment for addiction. Addictive behaviors, often viewed as highly reinforced responses, are commonly treated by introducing replacement coping mechanisms (e.g., exercise instead of drinking). When stress or loss of support causes the replacement behavior to enter extinction (e.g., the person stops exercising due to injury or lack of motivation), the highly ingrained addictive behavior is susceptible to resurgence. Therefore, resurgence serves as a powerful model for understanding and predicting relapse across a broad spectrum of human behavioral challenges, emphasizing the persistent influence of learning history on current choices.