Behavioral contrast: Research and areas for investigation

Boyle et al. (2018) wrote a narrative review. They asked why applied studies almost never test behavioral contrast.

The authors combed past journals. They found plenty of lab work on contrast, but almost none in clinics, homes, or schools.

The paper found a research gap. Basic scientists have shown contrast for decades, yet applied teams rarely measure it.

The authors urge clinicians to start testing contrast. They say this will help us predict when behavior swings in the opposite direction.

Lattal et al. (2024) extend the call. They argue that resurgence during extinction is simply contrast under another name. If you see problem behavior return when reinforcement stops, you may be looking at contrast.

Whalen et al. (1979) and Wesp et al. (1981) supply the rules. They show that you must first set equal reinforcement rates in both settings before you can spot true contrast. Without that step, your data can mislead you.

Innis (1978) and Bloomfield (1967) give the proof. Pigeons showed negative contrast when one schedule suddenly paid more. These lab studies are the base the 2018 paper wants us to copy in human settings.

You run two programs with one client. You thicken reinforcement in the morning session. If afternoon responding drops, you may have negative contrast. Track both sessions. Use equal baseline rates first. This lets you spot the swing early and adjust before problem behavior takes over.