Effects of signaled and unsignaled alternative reinforcement on persistence and relapse in children and pigeons
Lean signaled DRA gives fast behavior cuts and keeps them after rewards stop.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Nevin et al. (2016) compared two kinds of differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA).
Some kids and pigeons got a signal before the alternative reward. Others got no signal.
The team then stopped the rewards to see which group relapsed more.
What they found
Both signaled groups quickly cut problem behavior.
The lean signaled group kept the gains. They showed almost no relapse later.
How this fits with other research
Dowdy et al. (2020) later showed DRA still works in a noisy pool with teens. They removed extinction and still saw big drops, stretching the idea outside the lab.
Auten et al. (2025) asked if it matters how we pick the replacement task. They found both isolated and full FA-based DRA work, so the signal idea stays useful no matter the task.
Saini et al. (2020) warn that relapse through renewal is common in humans. Nevin’s lean signaled DRA gives one clear tool to fight that risk.
Why it matters
You can start lean signaled DRA tomorrow. Pick a short, easy replacement response. Give one clear cue before the reward. When you later fade the reward, expect little bounce-back. This keeps gains solid while you move to the next goal.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a brief visual or verbal cue right before the small DRA reward, then thin the schedule.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Three experiments explored the impact of different reinforcer rates for alternative behavior (DRA) on the suppression and post-DRA relapse of target behavior, and the persistence of alternative behavior. All experiments arranged baseline, intervention with extinction of target behavior concurrently with DRA, and post-treatment tests of resurgence or reinstatement, in two- or three-component multiple schedules. Experiment 1, with pigeons, arranged high or low baseline reinforcer rates; both rich and lean DRA schedules reduced target behavior to low levels. When DRA was discontinued, the magnitude of relapse depended on both baseline reinforcer rate and the rate of DRA. Experiment 2, with children exhibiting problem behaviors, arranged an intermediate baseline reinforcer rate and rich or lean signaled DRA. During treatment, both rich and lean DRA rapidly reduced problem behavior to low levels, but post-treatment relapse was generally greater in the DRA-rich than the DRA-lean component. Experiment 3, with pigeons, repeated the low-baseline condition of Experiment 1 with signaled DRA as in Experiment 2. Target behavior decreased to intermediate levels in both DRA-rich and DRA-lean components. Relapse, when it occurred, was directly related to DRA reinforcer rate as in Experiment 2. The post-treatment persistence of alternative behavior was greater in the DRA-rich component in Experiment 1, whereas it was the same or greater in the signaled-DRA-lean component in Experiments 2 and 3. Thus, infrequent signaled DRA may be optimal for effective clinical treatment.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2016 · doi:10.1002/jeab.213