A comparison of response cost and differential reinforcement of other behavior to reduce disruptive behavior in a preschool classroom.

Conyers et al. (2004) tested 25 preschoolers in a community classroom. Half the day used DRO with a token board. The other half used response cost with the same board.

An alternating-treatments design flipped the two procedures every 30 minutes. Teachers gave or removed tokens for staying on task and keeping hands and feet to self.

DRO cut disruption faster at first. By session three, response cost pulled ahead and kept problem behavior lower for the rest of the study.

Both systems beat baseline, but response cost won the race after the warm-up period.

Catania et al. (1974) used DRO plus token loss in a state hospital. Their kids also saw quick drops in aggression. Carole’s preschool data echo that early win, then add the twist that response cost stays stronger over time.

Steinhauser et al. (2021) later showed DRA plus brief redirection can finish the job when DRA alone stalls. The pattern is the same: start with simple reinforcement, then layer in a mild penalty or redirection for the last mile.

White et al. (1990) ran a similar flip-flop design and found context matters. DRO beat time-out during desk work, but time-out won during free play. Carole’s classroom was all task time, so response cost’s edge makes sense.

If you run a preschool or early-childhood room, begin with DRO to get quick relief, then phase in response cost once the kids know the token rules. You will keep the early gains and see disruption fall even lower without extra planning.