The Effects of Quality of Reinforcement on the Resurgence of Responding.

Romani (2025) worked with three children who had developmental delays. The team first gave high-quality snacks for button pressing, then switched to lower-quality snacks. Later they stopped all snacks. They watched how much the old button pressing came back.

The design let them compare resurgence after rich versus lean reinforcement.

All three kids showed more resurgence when the earlier snacks had been better. Higher-quality reinforcers made the old behavior rebound harder.

Lower-quality snacks led to smaller resurgence spikes.

Al-Jawahiri et al. (2019) pooled 28 FCT studies and showed thinning works best when kids already have strong communication. Romani adds a warning: if the reinforcers you thin away were super potent, watch for bigger relapse later.

Jennett et al. (2003) looks like a contradiction. They gave free reinforcement in a classroom and saw kids choose easy tasks and make more errors. Romani also finds that rich reinforcement has a downside, but the downside shows up later as resurgence, not right away as accuracy loss. The difference is timing and setting: classroom versus lab.

Johnson et al. (2004) tweaked obtained reinforcement during FCT and cut aggression. Both papers say the same thing: the real properties of your reinforcers—rate or quality—shape what happens next.

Before you thin or fade reinforcement, rate how good that reinforcer really is. If it’s a kid’s favorite iPad or cookie, expect a bigger bounce-back when you pull it. Plan extra booster sessions or stagger the quality down first. Track resurgence for at least a week after you stop.