Adventitious reinforcement during long‐duration DRO exposure
Long DRO works because the child learns the wait rule, not because we accidentally reinforce other behavior.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Rey et al. (2020) asked a simple question. If we stretch a DRO to 10 minutes, does the child stay quiet because we accidentally reinforce other behavior?
They set up a computer game. Pressing one key earned points on a schedule. Pressing a second key did nothing. During DRO, the first key was on hold, but the second key still paid off if the child waited the full 10 minutes without pressing the first key.
Each participant got both DRO and control sessions. The team counted how often the kids hit each key and watched whether the second key got more presses when it paid off.
What they found
DRO cut the target key presses to almost zero. The other key got a quick bump in presses, but the bump faded after a few minutes.
The brief rise in other behavior was too small and too short to explain the big drop in problem responding. The kids seemed to learn the rule "wait and something nice happens," not "do anything else and get candy."
In plain words, the contingency itself—not lucky reinforcement of other acts—did the heavy lifting.
How this fits with other research
Horner (1971) showed that long, non-contingent reinforcement alone can shrink behavior. Rey’s team builds on that idea but adds the DRO contingency back in. Their data say the contingency still matters, even when the wait feels like forever.
Badia et al. (1972) proved that differential reinforcement beats non-differential every time. Rey’s design mirrors that contrast: DRO (differential) versus simple control (non-differential). Both studies find the same winner—differential rules.
Berler et al. (1982) found that cues before free food can disinhibit suppressed behavior. Rey’s work nods to that, but shows the DRO signal does the opposite—it keeps the lid on, not off.
Why it matters
You can run a 10-minute DRO without fear that you’re just feeding random other behavior. The child learns the wait rule, not a new junk behavior. Next time a parent asks, "Won’t she just learn to do something else weird?" you can say the data show the spike is tiny and brief. Stretch your DRO confidently; the contingency still drives the change.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Extend your current DRO by two minutes and track if problem behavior stays low—no need to add extra tasks to fill the gap.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) is a procedure often used to decrease problem behavior, but the processes responsible for behavior reduction are not well understood. This study assessed whether adventitious reinforcement of other behavior contributes to DRO effectiveness when, relative to previous research, DRO exposure is prolonged. Two response options were presented on a computer and target responding was reinforced on a variable-ratio schedule. Response rates were then compared during DRO versus yoked variable-time or extinction probes. Across 2 experiments, DRO decreased target responding and increased other responding more than control conditions. However, increases in other responding did not usually maintain despite target responding remaining at low levels. DRO might adventitiously reinforce other responses transiently but the decreases in target behavior could not be entirely explained by adventitious reinforcement of the other response. Instead, reductions in target responding likely depend on the discriminability of the DRO contingency.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2020 · doi:10.1002/jaba.697