ABA Fundamentals

Systematic Review of Differential Reinforcement in Skill Acquisition

Cividini-Motta et al. (2024) · Behavior Analysis in Practice 2024
★ The Verdict

Give the best reinforcer immediately after the child answers correctly alone, then thin the schedule—not the size—for faster skill gains.

✓ Read this if BCBAs teaching new skills to children with autism in clinic or home programs.
✗ Skip if Practicers focused only on reducing severe problem behavior with escape extinction.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Cividini-Motta et al. (2024) pulled every study they could find on using differential reinforcement to teach new skills. They looked at kids with autism and other developmental disabilities. The team compared how different ways of giving reinforcement changed learning speed.

They asked two main questions. First, should you save the best reinforcer for correct answers the child does alone? Second, is it better to change how often you give reinforcement, or how big the reinforcer is?

02

What they found

The review found a clear pattern. Kids learned faster when the favorite toy or snack only followed independent correct responses. If the therapist helped, the child got a smaller or less exciting reinforcer.

Changing the schedule worked better than changing the size. Giving reinforcement quickly for independent responses beat giving bigger reinforcers later.

03

How this fits with other research

Rogalski et al. (2020) seems to disagree at first. They got big drops in problem behavior by giving kids 24 times more break time for compliance. The 2024 review says size matters less than timing. The difference is the goal: Rogalski wanted to stop escape behavior, not teach a new skill. Big magnitude works for reduction, quick delivery works for acquisition.

May (2019) lines up perfectly. In classrooms, students stayed on-task longest when teachers paired student choice with immediate praise. Quick attention for the right response matches the review's "independent response first" rule.

The 1963 monkey study by D showed the same core idea sixty years ago. Reinforcement works best when the desired response is already a little likely. The 2024 review simply confirms this old rule works for teaching kids with autism too.

04

Why it matters

Next time you run a teaching session, save the iPad or favorite candy for responses the child does without any help. Use smaller, quicker reinforcers for prompted answers. Then fade how often you give the good reinforcer once the skill starts rolling. You will not need to calculate exact percentages or buy bigger prizes—just deliver the best stuff right away when the kid gets it right alone.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Pick one program, reserve the top reinforcer for independent responses only, and deliver it within one second.

02At a glance

Intervention
differential reinforcement
Design
systematic review
Population
autism spectrum disorder
Finding
not reported

03Original abstract

The purpose of this article was to review and summarize the literature investigating the impact of differential reinforcement on skill acquisition. Researchers synthesized data from 10 articles across the following categories: (1) participant characteristics; (2) setting; (3) reinforcement procedures; (4) within-subject replication; (5) results; and (6) secondary measures (e.g., social validity). Results indicated that most of the participants were male, had a diagnosis of autism, and communicated vocally. The differential reinforcement condition in which reinforcement favored independent responses (e.g., edible for independent; praise for prompted responses) was the most frequently employed differential reinforcement condition and it resulted in the acquisition of more responses or faster acquisition for most participants. In addition, when differing reinforcement procedures manipulating different parameters of reinforcements were compared, better outcomes were attained when the schedule of the reinforcer was manipulated within the differential reinforcement procedure relative to when quality or magnitude were manipulated. Limitations of the previous research, recommendations for future research, and implications for clinical practice are discussed.

Behavior Analysis in Practice, 2024 · doi:10.1007/s40617-023-00903-z