Destructive behavior increases as a function of reductions in alternative reinforcement during schedule thinning: A retrospective quantitative analysis

The team looked back at 20 years of clinic charts. They found the kids whose destructive behavior had been treated with schedule thinning of alternative reinforcement.

For each child they measured how fast the alternative reinforcement was reduced. Then they checked how much the destructive behavior came back.

Bigger drops in alternative reinforcement made more resurgence. When the schedule thinned quickly, destructive behavior returned stronger and faster.

Slow, small steps kept the gains stable. The data formed a clear line: steeper thinning, steeper relapse.

Mitteer et al. (2018) saw the same rebound in adults. They stopped the contingency for caregiver behavior and relapse followed. Both studies show that when reinforcement disappears, old behavior returns.

Ward-Horner et al. (2017) remind us that some learners prefer leaner schedules. Taken together, the message is: go slow, but let the client guide the pace.

No contradictions here. The pigeon work in Wheatley et al. (1978) and the theory in Gde Jonge et al. (2025) all predict that less reinforcement means less response. The clinic data now prove it holds for destructive behavior too.

You now have numbers to back slow thinning. Cut alternative reinforcement by 10–20 % at a time, not 50 %. Watch the behavior plot after each step. If resurgence spikes, hold or step back before moving again. Your clients keep their communication gains while problem behavior stays low.