The effects of differential negative reinforcement of other behavior and noncontingent escape on compliance.

Two kids with behavior problems took part.

Each child had tasks they often refused to do.

The team tested two ways to help them comply.

One way was DNRO: give a short break when the child worked without refusal for a set time.

The other way was NCE: give a break every few minutes no matter what.

They switched the two methods back and forth to see which worked best.

Both methods cut problem behavior and raised compliance.

DNRO and NCE worked about the same for both kids.

The team saw quick drops in refusal and quick jumps in task completion.

Buitelaar et al. (1999) used a similar DR plan to stop wandering in adults with dementia.

Both studies show DR works across ages and settings.

Phillips et al. (2019) found breathing alone helped only one of three kids with escape-based aggression.

That study hints that pure antecedent tricks may fail, while Tiffany et al. show that adding DNRO or NCE gives a safer backup.

Veenman et al. (2018) pooled 19 classroom trials and found small but real gains from group DR.

Their meta-analysis lines up with Tiffany’s single-case result, showing DR works in both one-on-one and whole-class setups.

You now have two clear choices for escape-based refusal.

Pick DNRO when you want the child to earn breaks with good work.

Pick NCE when the task is very hard and the child needs steady relief.

Both cut problem behavior fast, so you can match the method to the moment.