Recent research on response disequilibrium theory: A concise review

King et al. (2025) read six recent studies that used response disequilibrium theory. They wrote a short, plain-language guide for clinicians.

The review pulls out rules you can use today to decide if a reinforcer will actually boost a target behavior.

Across the six papers, interventions worked best when the child had to do a clear, easy task first. The treat or toy came right after that task.

If the reinforcer was described as the "contingent activity," problem behavior stayed low and skill responses grew.

Ryan et al. (2022) looked at RIRD studies from 2007-2021. Many of those studies also follow disequilibrium logic, even if they do not say it. The two reviews overlap in time, so Ryan’s paper likely includes some of the same six trials.

Kranak et al. (2025) push Behavioral Momentum Theory and Resurgence-as-Choice to make treatments last. King et al. push disequilibrium to pick the right reinforcer. Use both: pick the reinforcer with disequilibrium, then keep it strong with high-p sequences and resurgence checks.

Greer et al. (2019) show that resurgence is a choice between two response paths. Disequilibrium adds the rule: the path that earns the richer, easier-to-describe activity wins. Together they explain why some treatments fail when reinforcement thins.

You can test any reinforcer in one session. Ask, "Is this something I can describe as the activity the kid gets for doing the work?" If yes, disequilibrium predicts it will work. If the reinforcer is vague or always free, pick a new one. Frame it out loud: "First write your name, then we blast the music." This single shift raised skill rates in every study King reviewed.