Further investigation of differential reinforcement of alternative behavior without extinction for escape‐maintained destructive behavior
Sweeten or enlarge the payoff for compliance and you can cut escape-driven destruction without blocking escape, but plan to use both tricks when you thin rewards.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Briggs and team worked with four children who hit, bit, or screamed to escape work.
They used DRA without extinction. Kids got bigger or better reinforcers when they finished tasks.
The goal was to see if quality or size alone could drop problem behavior, then keep it low while thinning the reward schedule.
What they found
Problem behavior fell for every child.
Quality or size alone worked at first.
To keep gains during thinning, three kids needed both quality AND size bumped together.
How this fits with other research
Bhaumik et al. (2009) already showed DRA without extinction works across 116 studies. Briggs et al. (2019) add the detail that bigger-better rewards can carry the load during thinning.
Oliver et al. (2002) found that tripling reinforcer time did not help much. Briggs shows the mix of quality plus size DOES help, updating the older view.
Carter et al. (2016) found higher escape rates boost later task persistence. Briggs keeps escape intact and still cuts behavior, matching that persistence angle.
Why it matters
You can start DRA right away without blocking escape. Just make the payoff for finishing sweeter or larger. When you thin the schedule, stack both upgrades. This keeps problem behavior low while you fade rewards.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one task the child hates, deliver a favorite snack and 2-minute break for finishing, then track if problem drops before you thin.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Previous research indicates that manipulating dimensions of reinforcement during differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) for situations in which extinction cannot be implemented is a potential approach for treating destructive behavior. Therefore, we replicated and extended previous research by determining (a) the conditions under which DRA without extinction decreased and maintained low levels of destructive behavior and (b) whether intervention effects maintained during reinforcement schedule thinning for the alternative response (i.e., compliance). Results showed that effective treatments were developed in the absence of extinction by manipulating the quality of reinforcement for compliance for 2 participants and by combining manipulations of the magnitude and quality of reinforcement for compliance for the other 2 participants. However, maintaining treatment effects during reinforcement schedule thinning required combining the magnitude and quality of reinforcement for 3 of the 4 participants. We discuss the clinical utility of this approach, review limitations of the study, and suggest directions for future research.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2019 · doi:10.1002/jaba.648