A comparison of various forms of reinforcement with and without extinction as treatment for escape-maintained problem behavior.

The team pitted edible treats and fun toys against break time.

They used an alternating-treatments design with kids whose problem behavior bought them escape from tasks.

No child lost the chance to take a break; the question was what happens when you also give something good for staying put.

Edibles and toys won.

Compliance rose and problem behavior fell, even without escape extinction.

Negative reinforcement (break) helped less, so the treat box beat the exit door.

Kahng et al. (1999) ran the same edible-vs-break race eleven years earlier and saw the same finish line: edibles rule, extinction optional.

Au-Yeung et al. (2015) later echoed the result with five new kids, sealing the pattern.

But Najdowski et al. (2003), Staddon et al. (2002), and Siu et al. (2011) seem to shout the opposite.

They studied food refusal, not task refusal.

In feeding, escape extinction is the engine; without it, kids still spit out peas.

The clash fades once you see the response class is different—swallowing versus worksheet sitting.

You can skip extinction during seat-work or chores when the reinforcer is a kid’s favorite snack or iPad clip.

Start with high-preference edibles, watch compliance climb, and keep the break option on the table.

Reserve extinction for the dinner plate, not the desk.