Relations between rate of negative reinforcement and the persistence of task completion.

The team used a multielement design with kids whose problem behavior was kept going by escape.

They compared two DRA schedules that let the child take the same short break, but one schedule gave the break often and the other gave it rarely.

The goal was to see which schedule made the kids keep working later when the breaks stopped.

Kids who had earned breaks more often were more likely to keep doing the task when breaks were removed.

Higher escape rates during treatment created stronger persistence, even though both schedules cut problem behavior at first.

Carter (2010) and Au-Yeung et al. (2015) already showed that edible or toy reinforcement beats break-only reinforcement. Carter et al. (2016) now adds that, if you do use breaks, giving them more often can still pay off later.

Bonner et al. (2022) extends this idea by showing that token reinforcement can match food during thinning, while escape-alone falls apart. Together the two papers say: either switch to tokens or, if you stay with escape, deliver it frequently enough to build staying power.

Briggs et al. (2019) conceptually replicate the no-extinction approach, finding you need bigger or better reinforcers to keep gains while thinning. Carter et al. (2016) complement this by focusing on rate: even without thinning, richer escape keeps responding alive when the challenge hits.

If you run DRA with breaks, do not be shy about letting the child escape often at first. A richer escape rate now can save you from big relapse later when the schedule tightens or extinction starts. Track how frequently you grant the break and treat rate as a key lever for durability, just like reinforcer quality or size.