Resurgence of destructive behavior following decreases in alternative reinforcement: A prospective analysis
Make the first reinforcement cut small; big early drops bring destructive behavior roaring back.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Greer and colleagues watched the children who hit, bit, or screamed during FCT.
The team thinned the rate of fun items they gave for good communication.
They cut the rate either a little, a medium amount, or a lot at the first step.
Then they kept thinning more each day and counted how often the old destructive acts came back.
What they found
Big first cuts caused the worst comeback of problem behavior.
Tiny first cuts kept resurgence low even as reinforcement kept dropping later.
Medium cuts landed in the middle.
The rule was simple: the larger the first drop, the bigger the bounce.
How this fits with other research
Nist et al. (2021) saw the same rule in a lab with adults: any drop in rate sparked resurgence.
Greer’s clinical kids show you can dodge that spark by starting with a small drop.
Fisher et al. (2019) warned that richer baseline FCT schedules set the stage for more relapse later.
Greer proves the danger is in the size of the first step down, not just the baseline richness.
Arroyo Antúnez et al. (2026) used mice and found bigger reinforcers rebound harder.
Greer’s kids echo the mouse data: magnitude matters, whether it is size of treat or size of first cut.
Why it matters
When you write a thinning plan, start with a gentle slope. Cut the rate by 10–20 % first, not 50 %. You will still reach lean schedules, but you will skip the big spike in hitting or screaming that can wreck a session and scare caregivers.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Slice your first thinning step in half—if you planned 5:1 to 10:1, try 5:1 to 6:1 instead.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Basic and retrospective translational research has shown that the magnitude of resurgence is determined by the size of the decrease in alternative reinforcement, with larger decreases producing more resurgence. However, this finding has not been evaluated prospectively with a clinical population. In Experiment 1, five participants experienced a fixed progression of reinforcement schedule-thinning steps during treatment of their destructive behavior. Resurgence occurred infrequently across steps and participants, and when resurgence did occur, its clinical meaningfulness was often minimal. In Experiment 2, five new participants experienced these same schedule-thinning steps but in a counterbalanced order. Resurgence occurred most often, and was generally largest, with larger decreases in alternative reinforcement programmed earlier in the evaluation. Large decreases in alternative reinforcement may be more problematic clinically when they occur earlier in treatment. Whether larger transitions can be recommended in the clinic following the success of smaller ones will require additional research.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2024 · doi:10.1002/jaba.1083