Resurgence of destructive behavior following differential rates of alternative reinforcement

Irwin Helvey et al. (2023) compared dense versus lean alternative reinforcement after FCT. They wanted to know if one schedule keeps destructive behavior from coming back.

Each child first got FCT plus extinction until problem behavior stayed low. Then the team tested resurgence under either a rich or thin schedule of reinforcement for the new communication response.

Resurgence showed up in both groups. The size of the rebound did not differ between dense and lean schedules.

The result says schedule density alone does not protect against relapse after FCT.

Johnston et al. (2017) saw the opposite: rich schedules later produced the biggest resurgence. The clash is only on paper. Smith worked with neurotypical adults in a lab; Irwin Helvey used single-case clinical kids. Different people, different settings, different outcome.

WFrazier et al. (2018) and Fisher et al. (2019) already showed that gradual thinning and lower baseline rates can cut resurgence. The new study agrees: the key is how sharply you drop reinforcement, not whether the post-FCT schedule is labeled dense or lean.

Falligant et al. (2022) and Shahan et al. (2020) fit the same story. They found resurgence rises exponentially with the size of the downshift. Irwin Helvey’s null result now joins that line: schedule density after FCT matters less than the size of any future reduction.

Stop worrying about picking the perfect dense or lean schedule after FCT. Focus instead on how you will thin it later. Plan small steps, watch for resurgence, and adjust the pace for each client. Your treatment is safer with gradual fades than with any single fixed density.