Evaluating Preference for Functional and Nonfunctional Stimuli in the Treatment of Destructive Behavior

The team compared two versions of differential reinforcement of communication (DRC). One version gave only the reinforcer that matched the function of the problem behavior. The other version mixed in everyday, nonfunctional items like stickers or small toys.

Each child tried both versions in an alternating-treatments design. The researchers recorded which version the child asked for most often and how much problem behavior happened.

Both DRC versions cut destructive behavior and increased communication. Most kids asked for the version that included the nonfunctional items. Problem behavior stayed low even when those extra items were present.

Corrigan et al. (1998) first showed that FCT still works when the functional reinforcer is gone and you use alternative items plus a clear signal. Irwin Helvey et al. (2023) extend that idea by letting kids choose functional plus nonfunctional items instead of switching them out.

Craig et al. (2018) paired alternative reinforcement with a special DRO context to stop resurgence. The new study pairs nonfunctional items with DRC and still sees low problem behavior, suggesting the pairing does not weaken treatment.

Borrero et al. (2005) found some kids wanted only positive reinforcers while others wanted both positive and escape. The 2023 data line up: kids differ in what they like, so offering a menu that includes nonfunctional items can boost buy-in without hurting results.

You can safely add small, easy-to-find items to DRC. Let the child pick the mix. You keep the functional reinforcer that matters, gain a preferred package, and still see fewer outbursts. No extra cost, happier client, same strong behavior reduction.