Caregiver preference for reinforcement‐based interventions for problem behavior maintained by positive reinforcement

Gabor et al. (2016) let five caregivers test-drive three common reinforcement plans. Each plan was presented in a short, real session with their child. The choices were noncontingent reinforcement, differential reinforcement of alternative behavior, and differential reinforcement of other behavior. After sampling all three, caregivers picked the one they liked best.

Three of the five caregivers chose DRA. They said it felt clear and doable. The other two picked NCR. No one chose DRO. Caregivers who got to try each plan first said they felt more ready to carry it out at home.

Lancioni et al. (2009) already showed NCR is a well-proven treatment. Their review says NCR plus extinction is solid science. That seems to clash with Gabor’s result—caregivers mostly skipped NCR. The gap is about evidence versus ease. E et al. counted behavior reduction; Gabor counted parent buy-in.

Weston et al. (2018) reviewed 45 DRO studies and found it works, yet Gabor’s parents still rejected DRO. Again, the difference is viewpoint: Regan looked at child outcomes; Gabor looked at caregiver comfort.

Phillips et al. (2017) ran 27 real cases and saw NCR succeed for most socially maintained problems. Gabor’s caregivers liked NCR less even though the data say it works. The new piece is preference—numbers alone don’t guarantee a parent will say yes.

You can have the best data in the world, but if the adult who must run the plan hates it, it won’t happen. Give caregivers a five-minute taste of each option. Let them see the pace, the materials, and the response effort. Their pick is the plan you should write into the behavior plan because they are more likely to stick with it.