Delivering alternative reinforcement in a distinct context reduces its counter‐therapeutic effects on relapse
Handing DRA rewards in their own signaled DRO window cuts later relapse in half.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Craig et al. (2018) asked a simple question. Can we keep the benefits of DRA while cutting the relapse that shows up later? They ran an animal lab study with two setups. In one, pigeons got DRA with no extra signal. In the other, the same DRA food was delivered only during a separate DRO period marked by a bright light.
After both groups learned the new response, all reinforcement stopped. The team watched how much the old target response came back. This comeback is called resurgence.
What they found
The pigeons that got DRA inside a clear DRO context showed about half the resurgence. The extra light told them, 'Now you get goodies for doing other stuff.' When the goodies stopped, the birds did not rush back to the old problem response.
Plain result: pairing alternative reinforcement with its own signal shields the behavior from the usual crash you see when DRA ends.
How this fits with other research
Bland et al. (2016) seems to say the opposite. They found that signaling DRA made the target response stick around longer. The two studies look like they clash, but they tested different things. Bland added the signal right onto the DRA itself. Craig moved the signal into a separate DRO block. Same tool, different spot, opposite outcomes.
King et al. (2026) later showed the idea works with humans. They paired extinction with its own cue and saw the same drop in relapse. Craig’s animal work laid the groundwork for that human test.
Podlesnik et al. (2017) adds a warning: if you keep changing the alternative stimulus, the benefit fades. Keep the DRO signal the same every time if you want the protection to hold.
Why it matters
If you run DRA in clinic or classroom, add a clear environmental cue that only appears while the client can earn reinforcement for other behavior. A red card on the table, a special pen, or a corner of the room can serve as the DRO context. When you later fade the extra reinforcement, the problem behavior is less likely to pop back up. This small tweak costs nothing and can save weeks of re-extinction later.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick a visual cue that only appears while the client can earn DRA, use it every time, and keep it consistent when you later thin the schedule.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Delivery of alternative reinforcers in the presence of stimuli previously associated with reinforcement for target behavior increases the susceptibility of target behavior to relapse. To explore contingencies that might mitigate this counter-therapeutic effect, we trained pigeons on a procedure that entailed extinction of previously reinforced target-key pecking, access to a distinct stimulus context contingently on refraining from target behavior (differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior; DRO), and reinforcement of alternative-key pecks (differential-reinforcement of alternative behavior; DRA) in that context. This DRO-DRA treatment was compared with standard DRA in successive conditions, counterbalanced across pigeons. Target behavior extinguished more rapidly in the Standard-DRA condition. When alternative reinforcement was discontinued, however, there was less resurgence after DRO-DRA than after Standard DRA. In a third condition, the DRO contingency was suspended so that the former DRA stimuli were not presented (DRO-NAC), and resurgence was greater than in the Standard-DRA and DRO-DRA conditions. Reinstatement produced by response-independent reinforcers was small and similar across conditions. Subsequent reacquisition of target-key pecking under baseline reinforcement conditions was faster following DRO-NAC than Standard-DRA or DRO-DRA. These findings suggest that DRO-DRA might serve as a useful method in clinical settings for reducing problem behavior while minimizing the threat of posttreatment relapse.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2018 · doi:10.1002/jeab.431