A human‐operant evaluation of commission and omission errors during differential reinforcement of other behavior

Adults without disabilities pressed a computer key for small cash rewards.

The researchers used a DRO schedule. If the person waited long enough, they earned money.

Next the team added "fidelity errors." Sometimes they paid the person too early (commission). Other times they forgot to pay after the wait (omission). They tested both error types in different orders.

Any error broke the DRO effect. Pressing came back fast.

Commission errors were worse. Rates shot above the first baseline.

The order mattered. Errors given early hurt more than errors given later.

Iannaccone et al. (2020) showed that adding a clear rule about lost pay makes DRO work better. Hronek flips that coin: tiny staff mistakes can erase gains just as fast.

Sisson et al. (1993) added brief deceleration tactics when DRO failed in two youth with dual sensory loss. Their fix worked, but it also brought side effects. Hronek warns you may need such add-ons if fidelity slips.

Doughty et al. (2002) ran a similar lab study with animals. Bigger food rewards ruined a DRL schedule. The pattern matches: change one detail and the whole suppression plan can collapse.

DRO looks simple, yet one mistimed reward can restart the very behavior you want to stop. Use a timer you can see, double-check data sheets, and train staff until their timing is flawless. If errors keep happening, consider switching to a different procedure instead of hoping DRO will recover.