The competition of autistic stereotyped behavior with usual and specially assessed reinforcers.

Dyer (1987) tested six autistic students in a classroom. The team first asked what toys or snacks each child loved most. They then gave those special items only when the child worked without stereotypy.

A multiple baseline across kids showed the plan in action. Usual classroom reinforcers were tried first, then the personally picked ones.

Individually chosen reinforcers won the race. Stereotypy dropped and task responses rose for every student.

When teachers used generic items, little changed. The custom picks did the heavy lifting.

Ding et al. (2017) echo the same idea. They paired non-contingent matched sensory items with trial-based DRO and also cut stereotypy. Both studies say powerful alternate stimuli can outshine self-stim.

Falligant et al. (2020) extend the logic. They used response interruption plus timed access to the stereotypy itself as the competing reinforcer. It worked, showing the principle holds even when the "prize" is a bit of the old behavior.

Matson et al. (2013) seem to disagree. They added extra social praise for stereotypy and saw no increase, then found extinction still tough. Their null result warns us: not any added reinforcement helps; it must be potent and individually chosen, exactly what Dyer (1987) proved.

Stop guessing what will compete with stereotypy. Run a quick preference assessment each time a plan stalls. If the usual items fail, test new ones until you see clear excitement. Then deliver that item only for stereotypy-free work. This simple swap can turn a stuck program around in one session.