Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior and demand fading in the treatment of escape-maintained destructive behavior.

The team worked with children with autism who hit, bit, or threw things when teachers gave demands. They mixed three tactics: DRA (rewarding a replacement task), escape extinction (no more breaks for problem behavior), and demand fading (starting with tiny tasks). They tracked destructive acts and compliance during each teaching session.

Destructive behavior fell to almost zero. Compliance jumped up fast. The package worked once all three parts ran together. No single part did the job alone.

Rogalski et al. (2020) extends this idea. They show the break you give for good work must be way bigger than any break the child can grab by acting out. A 24-to-1 ratio (240 s vs 10 s) cleared the bar for every kid.

Jarrold et al. (1994) is the earlier step. That study taught how to test if escape is about the task itself or the social part of teaching. The 1996 treatment rests on that clear read of the function.

Vazquez et al. (2019) sounds like a clash: parents hate escape extinction for feeding problems. The two papers do not fight. The 1996 team used extinction only after full assent and with dense DRA; the 2019 survey warns us to sell the plan first and keep reinforcement in the spotlight.

You now have a three-piece kit for escape destruction that has held up for almost thirty years. Pair any appropriate response (asking for break, touching a card, picking up a pencil) with a big, immediate break. Block every attempt to leave via problem behavior. Start demands so small the child stays successful, then grow them fast. Check parent comfort up front, lead with the reinforcement part, and you keep buy-in while you gain calm, compliant sessions.