Transitioning from rich to lean reinforcement as a form of error correction

Four boys with autism, practiced picture naming and sorting tasks in a clinic room. Each session used discrete-trial format: one question, one answer, immediate feedback.

When a boy made an error, the tutor either (A) repeated the trial with the same small candy or (B) switched him to a lean schedule—correct answers now produced praise only, no edible—for the next three trials. The two correction types alternated every ten trials so the team could compare speed of learning.

Rich-to-lean correction won. Accuracy rose faster on the days the boys lost the candy for three trials after an error. All four children reached the mastery criterion in fewer total trials with the rich-lean switch.

Parents and staff also liked it better. On a simple 1-5 scale they rated the rich-lean method as ‘easier to use’ and ‘less frustrating’ for the kids.

Castañe et al. (1993) already showed that making a child actively repeat the correct answer beats simply showing the answer. Jessel adds a new twist: after the active repeat, briefly thin the payoff. The two studies stack—first demand a response, then tighten reinforcement.

Kisamore et al. (2016) used prompt delay plus error repeat for intraverbal drills and also saw gains. Their procedure kept reinforcement steady; Jessel shows you can go further by dropping richness for a moment.

Rey et al. (2020) found that long DRO stretches still work if the contingency is clear. Jessel’s brief lean patch seems to sharpen that clarity—kids notice the change and respond more carefully.

Next time a learner errs, don’t just re-present the prompt and hand over the same Skittle. Instead, require the correct response, then switch to praise-only for the next two or three correct trials. You will likely see faster mastery and avoid satiation on the preferred edible. The procedure costs nothing, takes no extra materials, and both you and the family may find sessions feel smoother.