Differential reinforcement of other behavior and noncontingent reinforcement as control procedures during the modification of a preschooler's compliance.

The team worked with one four-year-old girl in a preschool classroom.

They wanted to see which control condition gave a cleaner proof that adult praise was really driving her compliance.

In an ABAB reversal design they compared two controls: DRO (praise only if she did NOT refuse for 30 s) and NCR (praise every 30 s no matter what).

When praise was tied to compliance, the child followed instructions about 80 % of the time.

During DRO reversals compliance dropped to near zero and stayed low every time.

During NCR reversals compliance also fell, but it bounced up and down and never hit bottom as reliably.

Storch et al. (2012) and Wilder et al. (2020) later paired differential reinforcement with guided-compliance prompts for kids who needed more than praise alone.

Kirshner et al. (2016) seems to disagree: they saw much lower baseline compliance in preschoolers with autism even when parents used supportive styles.

The clash is about population, not method. DRO still works once extra supports are in place, as shown in Wilder et al. (2020).

Kahng et al. (1999) and Lejuez et al. (2001) later showed that momentary DRO schedules cut severe problem behavior, proving the tactic travels beyond compliance.

If you need to show a parent or teacher that your reinforcement plan is what is really changing compliance, run a short DRO reversal.

It gives a sharper drop than handing out non-contingent praise, so your data story is crystal clear.

Try it during a routine like circle-time or clean-up: praise only if the child does NOT refuse for a short interval, then return to contingent praise and watch compliance rebound.