Resurgence is greater following a return to the training context than remaining in the extinction context

The team worked with children with autism. First they taught a new communication response and paid it with treats. Then they stopped payment for the new response.

Half the kids stayed in the same room. The other half went back to the room where problem behavior first happened. The researchers watched which group showed more return of the old problem behavior.

Kids who returned to the original training room showed a bigger spike in problem behavior. Kids who stayed in the treatment room had a smaller spike.

The study says moving back to the old setting raises relapse risk.

Greer et al. (2024) saw the same pattern in a mixed clinic group. They found that big early cuts in reinforcement also drive resurgence. Together the papers show both place and payment matter.

Shahan et al. (2020) tested longer DRA periods instead of room changes. Longer reinforcement slightly cut resurgence. Their weak result pairs with Podlesnik’s strong result, pointing to context as the stronger lever.

King et al. (2024) reviewed many relapse studies. They note that when context and reinforcement both worsen, relapse jumps. Podlesnik’s data now give a clean lab example of the context part of that recipe.

If you run DRA in a clinic room then send a child back to the classroom where biting first happened, plan for a burst. Keep the new communication response on strong reinforcement during the move, or add extra extinction trials, to blunt the spike.