Downshifts in synthesized alternative reinforcement and resurgence
Pulling one reinforcer from a double-reinforcer DRA brings a small resurgence spike, while pulling both brings a bigger one.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team built a lab task where people earned two rewards at once for pressing a new key.
Later they stopped one reward, then later stopped both, and watched if the old key press came back.
They wanted to know if losing just one part of a double-reinforcer DRA still sparks resurgence.
What they found
Taking away one reinforcer brought the old behavior back a little.
Taking away both brought it back a lot.
Any loss in the package matters, but a full cut hurts more.
How this fits with other research
Smith et al. (2024) showed that a big multi-reinforcer DRA beats single reinforcers but rebounds harder. The new study says you can soften that rebound by removing pieces instead of the whole bundle.
Ritchey et al. (2023) shrank reinforcer size and saw more resurgence as the snack got smaller. The 2026 paper moves the same idea into a two-reinforcer deal and still sees the climb.
Greer et al. (2024) worked with kids who had destructive behavior. They found that small, slow cuts in reinforcement kept resurgence low, while big early cuts spiked it. The lab result now backs their clinic data: partial beats total, and gradual beats abrupt.
Why it matters
When you fade a rich DRA package, peel off one reinforcer at a time instead of dropping the whole thing. Expect a small burst of the old behavior, but far less than an all-at-once cut. Track the burst, stay calm, and keep extinction in place until it dies down again.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Remove only the token part this week; keep praise flowing and count any old behavior bursts for two days before the next cut.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Clinicians often implement differential reinforcement of alternative behavior with synthesized alternative reinforcement, which involves the delivery of multiple, qualitatively different reinforcers contingent on a single alternative response. Previous research has demonstrated that downshifts in alternative reinforcement cause resurgence. We evaluated whether suspending one of the reinforcers from a synthesized alternative reinforcement contingency produces resurgence and compared this with the amount of resurgence when all reinforcers were suspended. First, we conducted a three-phase resurgence evaluation with three groups of rats. In Phase 1, target responding produced a single reinforcer (i.e., food or sucrose). In Phase 2, rats received two qualitatively different reinforcers (i.e., food and sucrose) contingent on alternative responding. In Phase 3, groups of rats experienced different downshifts from synthesized alternative reinforcement. Groups experienced suspension of both reinforcers (complete downshift), suspension of one reinforcer (partial downshift), or no change (no downshift). The partial downshift produced resurgence, and the complete downshift produced more resurgence than the partial downshift. Second, we conducted a follow-up analysis by implementing partial downshifts within a multiple-baseline design. The follow-up analysis provided additional support that partial downshifts in synthesized alternative reinforcement produce resurgence. We discuss both the theoretical and applied implications of these results.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2026 · doi:10.1002/jeab.70092