The role of adventitious reinforcement during differential reinforcement of other behavior: A systematic replication

Rey et al. (2020) asked why DRO cuts problem behavior. They ran three conditions with neurotypical adults. One group got DRO. One got food on a fixed clock no matter what. One got no food at all.

The team counted both the target response and any other responses people made. They wanted to see if DRO accidentally strengthens other, safer moves.

DRO gave the lowest rate of the problem response. It also gave the highest rate of other, incompatible responses.

The plain clock-food schedule did little. Extinction did less. The authors say DRO works partly because it sneaks extra value onto other behavior, not just because it stops paying for the target.

Rey et al. (2020) is a direct replication of their own 2020 long-duration study. Both labs show the same pattern: DRO beats non-contingent food. The second paper adds that the boost in other behavior fades once people spot the clock.

Attwood et al. (1988) ran the first pigeon test of DRO versus yoked VT. They also saw DRO win, but they credited the longer delay between response and food. The new study keeps that delay idea and adds the extinction group, updating the story.

Fantino (1969) looks like a clash. That old DRL paper found no power in accidental links. The gap is simple: DRL rewards long pauses, DRO rewards any pause. Species and schedule differ, so both findings can stand.

If you run DRO, remember it secretly pays for other, safer acts. You can boost this by picking reinforcers the client already loves and by making the timing easy to notice. When fading, watch for the drop in other behavior the lab saw after long exposure.