On the definition of differential reinforcement of alternative behavior

Vollmer et al. (2020) wrote a position paper. They say the old rule 'DRA must include extinction' is too tight.

The authors want 'differential reinforcement of alternative behavior' to mean 'reinforce the good stuff more, even if you still reinforce the problem a little'.

The paper does not give new data. It gives a new label. You can call a procedure DRA even when you cannot stop all reinforcement for problem behavior.

Craig et al. (2018) already tested DRA without full extinction. They used a DRO-DRA mix and saw less resurgence. Their lab data extend the idea Vollmer now makes official.

Corrigan et al. (1998) ran FCT while problem behavior still earned its usual payoff. Problem behavior still dropped. Their single-case example backs the looser definition.

Hodnett et al. (2018) used classic DR plus extinction with two children who have Smith-Magenis syndrome. Their success does not clash with Vollmer; it just shows the old style still works when you can do it.

School staff or parents often cannot block every bit of attention or escape. Now you can still write 'DRA' in the plan. Just make sure the alternative response earns richer, faster reinforcement than the problem. Check fidelity so the problem side does not accidentally win.