Multiple‐context training mitigates renewal during differential reinforcement

Podlesnik et al. (2026) tested a new twist on DRA plus extinction. They wanted to know if practicing the plan in several rooms would stop the behavior from coming back when kids returned to the first room.

Adults without disabilities served as participants. The team used a single-case design and tracked how fast the target response dropped and whether it returned later.

Training in multiple contexts cut renewal almost to zero. The trade-off was slower initial decrease in the problem response.

In plain words, the behavior took longer to go down at first, but it stayed down when the setting changed back.

Kimball et al. (2020) already showed that adding DRA to extinction weakens renewal. Podlesnik now shows you can push that benefit further by practicing in more than one place.

Storch et al. (2012) found the same multi-context trick works for disgust cues, giving early proof that the principle crosses content areas.

Silva et al. (2025) tried a different fix, context fading, and also cut renewal. Both studies say the same thing in different ways: vary the context if you want the behavior to stay gone.

Haney et al. (2021) took the idea into real homes. They added a brief renewal-mitigation step when moving feeding treatment from clinic to kitchen and wiped out resurgence in all four kids who had relapsed before.

If you run DRA plus extinction, rotate the spot. Work at the table, on the floor, and in the hallway across days. Expect a slower drop at first, but you will buy a big shield against renewal when the client goes back to the original room or caregiver. One easy move: start the program in two places from day one instead of waiting for generalization.