Response‐strengthening effects of same‐ and different‐context <scp>DRA</scp> training: The effects of two disruptors
Teach the replacement skill in a new place to keep problem behavior from roaring back when life throws free candy or sudden breaks at your kid.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Layton et al. (2022) asked a simple question: Does it matter where you teach the new behavior? They split kids into two groups. One group learned the replacement skill in the same room where problem behavior used to pay off. The other group learned the skill in a brand-new room.
After both groups mastered the skill, the team hit them with two real-life disruptors: extra free candy or a sudden break from demands. They watched to see if the old problem behavior would pop back up.
What they found
Kids who learned the skill in the same old context showed lots of response persistence. Their problem behavior bounced back hard when the candy or break appeared.
Kids who learned in a separate context stayed calm. Their problem behavior barely budged under the same surprises. Same teaching, different room, much safer result.
How this fits with other research
Steinhauser et al. (2021) saw the same pattern in classrooms. DRA alone cut stereotypy in some contexts but needed extra help in others. Both studies shout that place matters.
White et al. (1990) first showed context flips what works. DRO crushed problem behavior during tasks yet failed during free play. Layton’s lab data now prove the rule holds for DRA and later disruptors.
Fuhrman et al. (2016) attacked resurgence with schedule thinning inside FCT. Layton attacks it with a simple room switch. Together they give you two cheap shields: thin smart or move the teaching spot.
Why it matters
You can guard against relapse in five minutes. Teach the replacement skill in a new corner, a different table, or even just facing the other way. When the cafeteria hands out cookies or the fire alarm buys a break, the old tantrum stays quiet. No extra staff, no fancy tech—just pick a fresh spot and lock in the win.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick a spot the client has never contacted for problem behavior and run your next DRA session there.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) involves placing problem behavior under extinction and simultaneously reinforcing a desirable behavior. Recent research revealed that, as predicted by Behavioral Momentum Theory, DRA may also increase the persistence of the problem behavior. This research has also shown that a different approach to DRA, in which an alternative behavior is trained in a separate context from the target behavior, produces less persistence than the standard procedure. The research on this phenomenon, so far, assessed persistence using extinction as the disruptor. DRA, however, is often implemented under conditions in which extinction of the problem behavior is not feasible. This study evaluated persistence of problem behavior following same‐ and separate‐ context DRA training using an alternative disruptor, an additional source of reinforcement. Following a successful reproduction of a previous study of extinction as a disruptor but with domestic hens, this study produced similar findings using an additional source of reinforcement as the disruptor. These findings add to the evidence that alternative DRA arrangements may avoid the response‐strengthening effects found with traditional DRA procedures. The findings also demonstrate that disruptors other than extinction can be used to investigate response persistence following DRA and other procedures.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2022 · doi:10.1002/jeab.796