A translational comparison of contingency‐based progressive delay procedures and their effects on contextually appropriate behavior
Make clients DO something appropriate during delay thinning, not just wait quietly.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team worked with neurotypical adults in a lab setting. They tested two ways to stretch the time before reinforcement.
One group had to do a specific task to earn points. The other group only had to avoid problem behavior. Both groups faced longer and longer waits.
What they found
People who had to DO something kept doing the right thing more often. Their appropriate behavior stayed high even when waits got long.
Both groups kept problem behavior low. But only the 'do something' group kept looking good while they waited.
How this fits with other research
Drifke et al. (2020) saw the same pattern in kids with disabilities during FCT. They also found DRA beat DRO when stretching delays.
Capriotti et al. (2017) looks like a contradiction. They said progressive DRO worked fine for tics. But they only tested DRO types, not DRA versus DRO.
Iannaccone et al. (2023) from the same lab shows what to do when you can't use extinction. Boost reinforcer quality to help the good response win.
Why it matters
When you thin reinforcement schedules, always require an appropriate response. Don't just tell clients to 'sit tight' or 'don't do that.' Give them something useful to do instead. This keeps their good behavior strong while they learn to wait longer for reinforcement.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a simple response requirement before each delay period starts.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Schedule thinning is an essential step in treating problem behavior, yet little research has been conducted to determine the method associated with sustained treatment effects. A frequently used method for thinning reinforcement is contingency-based progressive delay, which requires the individual to meet some criteria before the reinforcers are returned. The response requirement could be dependent on (a) contextually appropriate behavior (differential reinforcement of alternative behavior-based thinning) or (b) absence of problem behavior (differential reinforcement of other behavior-based thinning). A translational arrangement with college students was implemented to determine the effects of these 2 response requirements. Tolerance was observed regardless of thinning method and was indicated by low rates of responding to the analogue problem behavior; however, more contextually appropriate behavior occurred during differential reinforcement of alternative behavior-based thinning. These results support the use of response requirements for behaviors that are expected of the individual when reinforcement is not immediately forthcoming.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2021 · doi:10.1002/jaba.780