Differential Reinforcement
Overview
There are many things that can be done to reduce or eliminate problem or interfering
behaviors. However, ethical concerns may be raised when using some of the
techniques that help stop these behaviors (i.e., extinction, punishment). These concerns
have led researchers to examine alternative procedures for addressing problematic
behaviors in an ethical and humane manner (e.g., Kazdin, 1980; Singh & Katz, 1985).
These positive reductive techniques emphasize the use of reinforcement to increase
occurrence of more adaptive or desirable behaviors, and, at the same time, using
extinction or elimination of triggers that help to decrease or eliminate disruptive
behaviors. This technique is in place of reducing opportunities for additional
reinforcement, removing already acquired reinforcers, or applying punishment in
response to unwanted behavior. Four procedures that incorporate reinforcement to
address and treat disruptive behaviors are differential reinforcement of incompatible
behavior (DRI), differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA), differential
reinforcement of other behavior (DRO), and differential reinforcement of low rates of
responding (DRL). Each differential reinforcement procedure is a special way to apply
reinforcement designed to reduce the occurrence of interfering behaviors (e.g.,
tantrums, aggression, self-injury, perhaps stereotypic behavior), while increasing the
use of more adaptive, communicative, or acceptable behaviors, resulting in a positive
and humane teaching environment to facilitate learning. Thus, the goal of differential
reinforcement programs is to reinforce target behaviors that are more adaptive than the
interfering behavior. This encourages the child to use of the more appropriate
alternative behavior while reducing, or altogether eliminating, the disruptive or
interfering behavior.
Pre-Assessment
Pre-Assessment
Differential reinforcement uses positive reductive procedures to increase appropriate
behaviors, thereby reducing or eliminating interfering behavior (e.g., tantrums,
aggression, self-injury, stereotypies).
Select an answer for question 542
Differential reinforcement procedures differ from other reductive techniques (e.g.,
extinction, punishment, physical restraints) in that behavior is altered with reinforcement
using:
Select an answer for question 543
Which is NOT a differential reinforcement procedure?
Select an answer for question 544
Which below best defines differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior (DRI)?
Select an answer for question 545
Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) is similar to DRI in that the
target behavior selected to reinforce can also not be emitted at the same time as the
interfering behavior?
Select an answer for question 546
Which below best defines differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO)?
Select an answer for question 547
Which of the following best describes the use of DRO procedures?
Select an answer for question 548
Differential reinforcement of low rates (DRL) consistently produces low rates of
responding.
Select an answer for question 549
What is the first step in applying a differential reinforcement procedure?
Select an answer for question 550
Which of the following features need to be incorporated when designing a differential
reinforcement intervention program?
Select an answer for question 551
What is Differential Reinforcement
There are four procedures for the effective use of differential reinforcement procedures
that will decrease inappropriate behavior. All have proven to effectively decrease
unwanted behavior, including:
o
o
o
o
stereotypy and off-task behavior (Newman, Tuntigian, Ryan, & Reinecke, 1997;
Taylor, Hoch, & Weissman, 2005);
phobias (Shabani & Fisher, 2006), compliance (Piazza, Moes, & Fisher, 1996);
aggressive and destructive behavior (Adelinis, Piazza, & Goh, 2001), and
unresponsivity to social stimuli (Lee, McComas, & Jawor, 2002; Shabani et al.,
2002; Williams, Donley, & Keller, 2000).
Differential Reinforcement of Incompatible Behavior (DRI)...
The first, differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior (DRI), delivers
reinforcement upon the occurrence of a behavior that is physically incompatible with or
cannot be exhibited at the same time as the inappropriate behavior (Deitz & Repp,
1983). For example, if the interfering behavior is inability to pay attention, then an
incompatible behavior would be the ability to pay attention. Another example, if it is
desired to stop the child from running around out of a seat, then in-seat behavior is
targeted and reinforced. The idea is that the target or replacement behavior cannot be
performed at the same time as the problematic behavior.
Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior (DRA)...
Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) is similar to DRI in that both
reinforce the occurrence of a behavior that is an alternative to the behavior selected for
reduction (Deitz & Repp, 1983). However, the target behavior selected in DRA is not
necessarily incompatible with the unwanted behavior. For example, a student who
frequently engages in outbursts while in the classroom can be taught to raise his hand
to gain the teacher's attention. In this procedure, hand-raising and outbursts can be
done at the same time. However, it is likely that the student will make fewer outbursts
and instead engage in a more appropriate attention-seeking behavior (e.g., raise hand)
if the target behavior is strengthened. In both DRI and DRA procedures, it is important
to select an incompatible or alternative behavior that already exists or is present in the
learner's repertoire of responses (a behavior or skill that the learner exhibits regularly)
that will facilitate additional skill-building opportunities, and that will be supported in the
learner's natural environment after the intervention program has ended. When
behaviors are selected that are meaningful, relevant, and useful to the learner, these
behaviors typically continue to be strengthened in everyday interactions and settings
and with multiple social partners.
Also to consider is that whenever possible, the type of stimuli chosen to function as
reinforcers should be the same reinforcer that currently supports the unwanted behavior
(as determined in the functional assessment). If an external reinforcer is needed, then
ideally it is a good idea to include the learner in the selection. This will increase the
learner's motivation and cooperation with the intervention program. Equally important is
that the reinforcement needs to be presented only when the target behavior is
performed, consistently, and immediately following the behavior and be as strong, or
stronger, than the positive consequences (reinforcers) maintaining the interfering
behavior; otherwise the intervention program is likely to be ineffective in changing the
learner's behavior. To adequately address this component, a functional assessment of
the behavior should be administered prior to conducting the differential reinforcement
program to determine the function of the interferring behavior and identify the stimuli
that reinforces it (please see the functional assessment module for additional
information).
The next guideline for effectively implementing a DRI/DRA procedure is to establish a
schedule of reinforcement that specifies how often to deliver the reinforcement. Initially,
it may be necessary to deliver a continuous schedule of reinforcement in which every
occurrence of the specified behavior is reinforced. Once the incompatible or alternative
behavior is strengthened and occurring regularly, an intermittent schedule of
reinforcement may be gradually introduced, in which reinforcement is not delivered
during every time the target behavior occurs, but in a regular pattern, such as after
every three occurrences. The final consideration is to combine DRI/DRA with other
reductive procedures (Stokes & Kennedy, 1980; Luiselli, 1980), such as extinction,
functional communication training, or self-management to assist with learning.
Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior (DRO)...
A third procedure, differential reinforcement of other behavior, DRO, delivers
reinforcement for any appropriate behavior whenever an undesirable behavior is not
emitted during a specific period of time. A broad range of appropriate behaviors may be
reinforced, as long as the behavior selected for reduction does not occur. To apply the
DRO procedure, an interval of time is selected and any appropriate behavior exhibited
at the end of that interval is reinforced, as long as the unwanted behavior did not occur.
If not, the reinforcer is not delivered and the interval is reset to try and bring out an
appropriate behavior in a new interval of time. Most applications of DRO involve a fixed
DRO schedule of reinforcement in which the interval of time remains the same across
trials. For example, a fixed DRO of 1 minute means that reinforcement is delivered
every 1 minute and contingently upon the absence of the unwanted behavior.
Alternatively, a variable DRO schedule of reinforcement may be used, in which the
interval of time is set to vary across trials. For example, a variable DRO schedule might
consist of 15, 30, 45, 60, and 90 seconds, arranged to occur in a random order.
There are several important guidelines to consider when implementing DRO
procedures:
o
o
o
o
select an initial DRO time interval that is short enough to yield frequent
reinforcement for other, appropriate behaviors. For example, if baseline data
indicate that the individual typically remains on task for 5 minutes before exhibiting
disruptive behavior, then the time interval would be programmed at 4 minutes while
additional intervention techniques (e.g., prompting, self-management) are applied to
promote learning.
Secondly, the time interval between reinforcement should gradually increase as the
learner's on-task behavior improves. If behavior appears to worsen when larger
DRO intervals are used, then the size of the interval should be reduced until the
behavior is again under control.
reinforcement needs to be provided at the end of the DRO interval only if the
undesirable behavior has not occurred and a more appropriate behavior has
occurred. For example, if the behavior selected for reduction is yelling, the goal is
for the individual to engage in a more acceptable behavior during the time interval,
such as engaging in an incompatible behavior (talking to a peer), an alternative
behavior (e.g., playing with playdough, holding a book to read), or another behavior
(e.g., reading, watching TV).
DRO should be used in conjunction with other reductive procedures to increase its
effectiveness, such as self-management, overcorrection, prompting, or extinction.
Differential Reinforcement of Low Rates of Responding (DRL)...
Lastly, differential reinforcement of low rates of responding (DRL) aims to decrease but
not eliminate the problem behavior. The rationale for using this approach is that the
behavior, itself, is not a problem, rather its frequency (i.e., how often it occurs) and/or
duration (i.e., how long it lasts) is difficult to tolerate. The most common way to use this
approach is to establish a criterion limit for what is considered an acceptable rate or
duration for the problem behavior. The learner is reinforced for not exceeding the limit.
For example, if the learner engages in 8 acts of talking out loud during a 20-minute
interval in which the criterion is set at no more than 5 times, then the individual does not
receive reinforcement.
Who Can Implement Differential
Reinforcement?
Differential reinforcement procedures can be developed and used by a variety of adults
including parents, teachers, special educators, therapists, and paraprofessionals.
Who Would Benefit Most from
Differential Reinforcement?
Learners with ASD range from preschool ages through high school and into adulthood.
These learners exhibit challenging or other inappropriate behaviors can benefit from
differential reinforcement procedures. Examples of specific skills that have been the
focus of differential reinforcement interventions in evidence-based studies include:
o
phobias (Jones & Friman, 1999; Shabani & Fisher, 2006);
o
stereotypies, repetitive behavior (Patel, Carr, & Kim, 2000; Taylor et al., 2005);
disruptive, aggressive behavior (Adelinis et al., 2001; Newman et al., 1997; Piazza
o
o
et al., 1996);
compliance (Lalli et al., 1999);
verbal responding (Lee et al., 2002; Schwartz, 1982; Shabani et al., 2002; Williams
o
et al., 2000); and
play skills (Miller & Neuringer, 2000).
o
Step-by-Step Instructions for
Implementation
The following steps for implementation provide an in-depth description of each step
needed to implement a differential reinforcement program effectively.
Step 1. Identifying the Interfering
Behavior
Teachers/practitioners define the target behavior.
The first step in using a DR procedure is to identify the interfering behavior. Interfering
behaviors are disruptive behaviors such as screaming, aggression, or
repetitive/stereotypic behaviors (e.g., lining up toys or blocks, spinning objects, etc.) that
interfere with learning.
In addition to identifying the specific behavior that is interfering with learning, gathering
information from team members regarding the following aspects of the interfering
behavior will be helpful.
Teachers/practitioners gather information from team members regarding the
following aspects of the interfering behavior:
o
topography, or what the interfering looks like: (e.g., banging arms against the table);
o
frequency, or how often the behavior happens: (e.g., from once or twice per day to
a dozen or more times per day);
o
intensity, or how severe the behavior is: (e.g., if the behavior is biting, how hard
does the learner bite and does he cause tissue damage);
location, or where the behavior is occurring: (e.g., in gym class, on the playground,
during math class); and
duration, or how long the behavior lasts: (e.g., a tantrum that lasts a few minutes or
that can last for an hour).
o
o
This information can be summarized to aid in the assessment of the possible functions
of the interfering behavior. For example, knowing that Joey loudly shouts profanities
between three-four times for 30 seconds or more when in the lunchroom provides
specific information about the interfering behavior that can be of value in planning
intervention.
Step 2. Determining the Function of the
Interfering Behavior
Teachers/practitioners use functional behavior assessment to identify the function of the
interfering behavior.
An important part of determining the function of the interfering behavior will be
interviewing team members about the nature of the problem behavior. To do so, you will
need to complete a functional behavior assessment that will allow you to identify the
current antecedents and consequences.
Step 3. Identifying Data Collection
Measures and Collecting Baseline Data
Teachers/practitioners identify data collection measures to be used to assess the
interfering behavior before implementing the intervention.
When collecting data for DR, it is important to focus on the frequency, topography, and
intensity/severity of the behavior. To the right and below are some examples of data
sheets that may be particularly helpful in describing the interfering behavior.
Teachers/practitioners gather baseline data on the interfering behavior.
The data collection measures identified above are used, along with the information
gathered in Steps 1 and 2, to determine the nature of the interfering behavior prior to
the intervention.
During the baseline phase, it is important to collect data for a long enough period of time
to see if there is some consistency in the behavior. Teachers/practitioners should
decide how long data will be collected (e.g., one week, two weeks), and what will
happen if there are not enough data to inform intervention (e.g., redesign the data
collection method, observe at a different time). Baseline data collection allows
teachers/practitioners to assess the impact of the intervention on the interfering
behavior over time. Typically the behavior should be observed for three or more days in
different settings (e.g., science class, music).
Teachers/practitioners decide who will collect the initial data.
For example, it might be easiest for a paraprofessional to collect data across the day.
The team also may decide that it would be easier to have an objective observer collect
data rather than the classroom teacher who is in the middle of a lesson.
Step 4. Selecting a Differential
Reinforcement Procedure
There are many types of differential reinforcement procedures included in the
designation of DR. They include:
o
o
o
o
differential reinforcement of other behaviors (DRO; e.g., reinforcing singing to
replace screaming);
differential reinforcement of alternative behaviors (DRA; e.g., reinforcing shaking
hands to replace slapping);
differential reinforcement of incompatible behaviors (DRI; e.g., reinforcing
appropriate language to replace swearing); and
differential reinforcement of low rates of responding (DRL; e.g., reinforcing reduced
levels of calling out).
When deciding which procedure to use, teachers/practitioners:
o
o
o
o
o
identify functionally similar behaviors (behaviors that serve the same functions-such as saying, "Help please" instead of grunting) that learners already have in their
repertoire;
determine the type and amount of functional skills (skills the learner currently has
that are functional alternatives to the interfering behavior-e.g., he can tap teacher
on the arm to secure her attention instead of screaming);
determine how frequently these desired behaviors occur;
consider the topography (what the behavior looks like), the frequency of the
interfering behavior, how severe the behavior is, how the behavior is affecting the
environment, and where the behavior is most likely to occur; and
consider their own professional judgment and comfort level with the proposed
procedure.
o
o
o
o
Step 5. Creating an Intervention Plan
When creating a DR intervention plan, teachers/practitioners need to address
several features.
Teachers/practitioners define other procedures that will be incorporated
(e.g., extinction, functional communication training) with the differential
reinforcement procedure. For example, a teacher/practitioner who decides to
use DR for biting may also need to use functional communication training to
teach the learner how to make requests.
Teachers/practitioners administer a reinforcer assessment to identify
learner-preferred objects and activities that can be used as rewards for
demonstrating the replacement behavior. The goal is to motivate the learner
with tangible rewards for demonstrating a more positive, acceptable behavior that
serves the same function as the problem behavior. The reinforcer assessment
can be as informal as displaying a variety of objects or pictures of
objects/activities related to the learner's interest and observing what the learner
consistently chooses. In addition, asking the learner (if possible) and
parents/family members about preferred reinforcers should be considered. Keep
in mind that the learner's interest in reinforcers may decrease or change over
time. For example, the learner's initial desire to "work" for time on the computer
after completing assignments may no longer be a preferred reinforcer. When
learner preferences change, other favorite objects/activities can be offered for
selection.
o
o
o
o
o
Teachers/practitioners determine a schedule of reinforcement (how
frequently the reinforcer is delivered). For example, decide on whether the
learner gets a reward every time he engages in the replacement behavior or a
reward for going 10 minutes without engaging in the interfering behavior.
Teachers/practitioners establish criteria for changing the schedule of
reinforcement. For example, after three sessions in which the learner is
reinforced every 5 minutes, he/she will be reinforced every 10 minutes for the
following three sessions.
Teachers/practitioners specify the timeline for data collection. For example,
the team decides that data should be reviewed after one week of implementation
to identify the following week's schedule of data collection (to monitor student
progress).
Teacher/practitioners clearly write-out the intervention plan and make it
available to other team members.
o
The matrix to the right provides samples of four possible intervention plans based
on common functions of interfering behavior. Each of the hypothesized functions
is paired with DR procedures, examples of how the procedure might be
implemented, and other behavior procedures that might be used in conjunction
with DR.
Step 6. Implementing the Intervention
The next step in using a DR procedure is to implement the intervention plan. During
implementation of a DR procedure, two components should be addressed.
Before the interfering behavior occurs, teachers/practitioners should:
o
o
choose which behavior to reinforce based on the intervention plan;
explicitly teach the replacement or alternative skills
This may be done by using functional communication training, task analysis, graduated
guidance, or other kinds of direct teaching procedures such as discrete trial training.
For example, if the replacement behavior is requesting a break, teachers/practitioners
may need to teach the learner how to request a break using pictures or scripts.
o
continuously reinforce the other/low rate/alternative/incompatible behaviors.
To continuously reinforce, rapidly reinforce every instance of the replacement behavior.
For example, if you are reinforcing a learner for remaining seated, provide
reinforcement the entire time the learner is in his/her seat.
o
match the reinforcement to the function of the behavior.
Because the function of a learner's interfering behavior can change, it is important to
confirm that your intervention always matches the hypothesized function of the
interfering behavior. For example, the function of calling out behavior may initially be for
attention and may later shift to escape. The DR procedure must change as well to
reinforce the function of the replacement behavior (i.e., not calling out).
If or when the interfering behavior occurs, teachers/practitioners prompt and immediately respond
to the alternative behavior by:
o
o
prompting frequently to assure that there are enough instances of the desired
behavior to reinforce; and
being consistent.
If the desired behavior does not occur, prompt and immediately reinforce the prompted
desired behavior. For example, if the learner is calling out to get attention, prompt him to
raise his hand often so that he can be reinforced. Prompting the desired behavior
immediately after it occurs will increase the likelihood of the learner displaying the
desired behavior. For more information about this procedure, please see Least-to-Most
Prompting: Steps for Implementation (National Professional Development Center on
Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2008).
After the plan has been in place for a certain number of days as documented in theintervention
plan (see step 5.3), teachers/practitioners can alter the schedule ofreinforcement.
For example, if a learner is being reinforced every hour and meets the criteria for
change according to the intervention plan, the learner may then be reinforced only twice
per day.
Step 7. Collecting Outcome Data
To determine the effectiveness of the DR procedure and whether modifications
are necessary (e.g., a new interfering behavior is presenting),
teachers/practitioners must regularly collect outcome data by:
o
o
continuously assessing (e.g., A-B-C, frequency, and intensity data) the interfering
behavior; and
consulting the original assessment and baseline data to ensure that they are using
the same measures.
For example, if the frequency of the original behavior was assessed during baseline,
assess the frequency of the desired behavior to monitor progress.
Step 8. Reviewing and Modifying the
Intervention Plan
Teachers/practitioners review the outcome data and discuss the results with team members.
Teachers/practitioners summarize the results making sure to include both baseline and outcome
measures.
Teachers/practitioners identify any new interfering behaviors that may have emerged and assess
them for function.
It is possible that new interfering behaviors have the same function of the extinguished
behavior. If this is the case, it may be that a similar intervention will work.
Teachers/practitioners modify the intervention plan depending on the baseline
and outcome data.
For example, if the data show that a learner's hitting behavior has improved minimally,
teachers/ practitioners may need to modify the plan to reinforce the desired behavior
more frequently.
Teachers/practitioners conduct on-going checks of intervention effectiveness.
Interventions will most likely need to be reviewed and modified several times before the
interfering behavior is extinguished
Case Study Examples
The authors have provided two case examples for this module.
Steve is a sixteen-year-old sophomore with high functioning autism who attends high
school with typically developing peers. Steve is able to fully participate in his classes
without paraprofessional support and enjoys going to school. However, Mr. Allen,
Steve's math teacher, has reported problems with having Steve in his class.
Christopher is an 11-year-old boy with autism and intellectual disability in a special
education classroom. Christopher speaks in three to five word sentences, though his
language usually consists of delayed echolalia from preferred animation movies. His
teacher considers Christopher one of the more disruptive children in her classroom
because of his tendency to repeat movie lines at a high volume.
Steve
Case Study: Steve
Steve is a sixteen-year-old sophomore with high functioning autism who attends high
school with typically developing peers. Steve is able to fully participate in his classes
without paraprofessional support and enjoys going to school. However, Mr. Allen,
Steve's math teacher, has reported problems with having Steve in his class. Although
Steve is competent in completing the work, he regularly argues with his classmates
when they make mistakes or fail to solve problems during group activities. Given
Steve's strong academic skills in math, Mr. Allen is optimistic that this strength might
facilitate opportunities for interaction with his peers (perhaps even building the
groundwork for friendship development); however Steve must learn how to cope with
his frustration and interact with his peers using more appropriate social behaviors.
After conducting a functional behavior assessment (FBA) over several math classes,
Mr. Allen confirmed that Steve's frustration with his peers ability correctly solve math
problems in group setting is the antecedent that triggers his yelling, name calling, and
occasional profanity. Mr. Allen also noted that Steve's anxiety might be heightened in
group settings because whatever work is not finished during this time is then assigned
as homework. Mr. Allen met with the rest of the team to determine which differential
reinforcement procedure would be a suitable choice to implement. It was decided that
introducing alternative behaviors to the problem behavior (i.e., arguing) might be most
appropriate to improve Steve's repertoire of skills. In this case, the team thought that
teaching Steve to cooperate and work together with other students on group problems
would result in less time spent arguing. Thus, the target behavior was to increase
Steve's use of cooperative behaviors, including listening, waiting for others to finish the
problem, asking if someone needs help after a certain amount of time, and asking for a
break when becoming frustrated. In generating the intervention plan, the team identified
the various teaching strategies and modifications to facilitate learning. First, the number
of assignments assigned to Steve's group was decreased to a reasonable amount that
could be done within the given period of time. The goal was to alleviate Steve's anxiety
around having homework at night in order to focus his attention on learning the
cooperative behaviors.
Second, the behavior analyst met individually with Steve to explain the concept of
cooperation and to role-play the different target behaviors intended to replace the
argumentative behaviors. It was decided to introduce self-management as an additional
intervention strategy to support Steve's acquisition and performance with the
replacement behaviors. For each behavior, Steve identified when he engaged in
appropriate occurrence (e.g., listening to the adult solve the problem; allowing each
student 5 minutes to initially work at the problem independently before offering
assistance; or asking for a break when frustrated by a refusal to accept his help) versus
inappropriate occurrence (e.g., interrupting the student to insult him/her; shouting out
the answer before the time was up; throwing his pencil and notebook on the ground out
of frustration) and how to record correct occurrences. Steve also selected items and
activities to use as reinforcement for correct usage of the replacement behaviors, such
as earning increments of time to work on Sudoku puzzles at the end of class. The next
step involved implementing the intervention program to the classroom. Frequency data
were collected on the number of unwanted behaviors within each math class to monitor
Steve's performance and evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention program. As
Steve's frustration decreased and use of the cooperative behaviors improved
(determined by the data), Mr. Allen gradually increased the number of math problems
assigned to the group.
Mr. Allen also introduced other group projects to assist with generalizing Steve's
behaviors across other activities, such as having students compete in teams to solve
problems and work together to explain math concepts. Since Steve was one of the
stronger students, he was able to assume an "expert" role and was sought out by his
classmates to be a part of the group. As a result, Steve received positive reinforcement
from his peers through praise, admiration, and respect. These opportunities for
interaction also resulted in time for Steve to get to know his peers and vice-versa and
with additional support and instruction from the team, Steve learned other critical
pragmatic skills to improve the quality of his interactions with peers, such as introducing
age-appropriate topics and asking relevant questions within the conversation, learning
when to switch to a different topic, and sharing information in a socially acceptable way.
The time in math class ended up not only improving Steve's academic performance, but
also enhancing his social development and increasing his self-esteem and confidence
when interacting with his peers. Mr. Allen reported being pleased to have Steve in class,
given his math strengths.
Christopher
Case Study: Christopher
Christopher is an 11-year-old boy with autism and intellectual disability in a special
education classroom. Christopher speaks in three to five word sentences, though his
language usually consists of delayed echolalia from preferred animation movies. His
teacher considers Christopher one of the more disruptive children in her classroom
because of his tendency to repeat movie lines at a high volume. During five days of
collecting baseline data, Christopher averaged 10 occurrences of talking out loud during
each 45 minute instructional activity. A functional behavior assessment (FBA)
determined that higher rates were more likely to occur to escape less preferred teaching
activities that involve writing. For example, during an activity where the students were
asked to write about their weekend plans, Christopher began to repeat movie lines until
the teacher approached him. The teacher initially tried to redirect Christopher back to
the activity by offering to write his responses in the journal. Christopher ignored his
teacher, continued to engage in echolalia, and only stopped after the teacher offered
the choice of a free time activity to do at his desk.
After further observation of Christopher escaping writing activities and several meetings
with the team and parents, it was decided to use a full-session approach involving
differential reinforcement of low rates (DRL) to produce lower rates of the undesired
behavior. The aim was to program the delivery of reinforcement when Christopher
emitted fewer episodes of talking out loud than the established criterion. Classroom
observation, as well as speaking with Christopher's parents, enabled the team to
identify suitable and appealing reinforcers to deliver each time Christopher stayed below
the criterion level. Also needed were modifications to the environment in order to ensure
that Christopher did not exceed the criterion level. Using the information from the FBA,
the team decided that Christopher needed to use another modality besides handwriting
to help him participate in writing activities. Because it was difficult for Christopher to
stabilize his hand in order to write (as evaluated by his occupational therapist), the
behavior analyst on the team suggested using a computer program that could type
responses based on audio input. This allowed Christopher to record information by
saying his responses out loud. The behavior analyst worked one-on-one with
Christopher to teach him the computer program, initially having him answer questions in
response to preferred interests (e.g., movies). As Christopher's motivation to respond
improved, teaching activities were interspersed with preferred topics to transition
Christopher back into the classroom setting.
During the next two weeks of the intervention, Christopher was given 10 minutes of
video time (because of his love of movies) at the end of each period when he talked out
seven or less times during each 45 minute activity. Once Christopher met this goal
across five consistent school days, the criterion level was gradually lowered to talking
out five or fewer times per teaching activity. Christopher's teacher continued to gradually
lower the criterion until Christopher rarely engaged in the behavior. The schedule of
reinforcement was also gradually reduced so that Christopher was not excluded from
important teaching activities (e.g., reducing free time from 10 to 5 minutes of play);
however, the team and Christopher's parents also deliberated to identify incentives and
rewards that could be incorporated within the on-going instructional activities. Activities
such as art and music were deemed to be more reinforcing to Christopher, so the team
brainstormed strategies to embed these interests within the curriculum. For example,
Christopher practiced addition and subtraction by drawing and erasing shapes and
practiced spelling words related to preferred songs that he then listened to while
wearing headphones. The differential criterion rate was still followed and adjusted to
lower levels but it was also important to embed direct reinforcement throughout the day
in order to increase Christopher's enthusiasm to participate with the class and sustain
low occurrences of the problem behavior.
Summary
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Differential reinforcement are positive reductive procedures aimed to decrease or
eliminate behavior through the use of reinforcement rather than the removal or loss
of reinforcement or use of punishment.
Four procedures that use reinforcement to decrease or eliminate inappropriate
behavior are differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior (DRI),
differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA), differential
reinforcement of other behavior (DRO), and differential reinforcement of low
rates of responding (DRL).
DRI is a schedule of reinforcement in which the occurrence of the target behavior
topographically dissimilar with the problem behavior is followed by reinforcement.
DRA provides reinforcement for the occurrence of a target behavior that is an
alternative to the problem behavior.
Target behaviors that are incompatible or alternative to the problem behavior
should be within the learner's repertoire of responses, that can be emitted regularly,
should enable the learner to acquire more skills, and should be supported within the
learner's natural environment.
A schedule of reinforcement should be planned to deliver reinforcement on a
continuous schedule to initially strengthen the new behavior, followed by a gradual
thinning intermittent schedule of reinforcement.
Reinforcement should be selected from stimuli that relates to the function of the
new target behavior and is presented contingently, consistently, and immediately
following the target behavior.
o
o
o
o
o
o
DRO provides reinforcement whenever the problem behavior is not emitted during a
specific period or interval of time.
The initial DRO time interval should reflect the data recorded during the baseline
period and enable the learner to receive continuous reinforcement.
Procedures should be embedded to increase the length of the DRO interval.
A DRL schedule yields low, consistent rates of responding.
A full-session DRL schedule delivers reinforcement when the rate of the problem
behavior is equal to or below a criterion limit.
An interval DRL schedule delivers reinforcement after each interval in which the
rate of the problem behavior is equal to or below a criterion limit.
o
A spaced-responding DRL delivers reinforcement after an amount of time has
o
passed from the last onset of the problem behavior.
Baseline data should determine the initial DRL criterion limit, followed by a gradual
reduction in the rate.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q. How do I ensure that an incompatible/alternative behavior will occur outside of
the reinforcement schedule?
A. The question of generalizability is an important consideration because the ultimate
goal is to have the learner independently emit the appropriate, target behavior instead
of the problem behavior. There are several factors to remember when deciding what
target behavior will be most suitable to teach and most likely to sustain.
o
o
o
First, the target behavior should be within the learner's repertoire of behaviors, also
known as a "maintenance" skill.
Second, teaching a "maintenance" skill will allow the learner to emit the target
behavior more regularly, which will produce more reinforcement to the learner.
The target behavior should also hold relevance and meaning to the learner's daily
life and interactions. Teaching a skill that cannot be supported by the learner's
natural environment is setting up for a failed plan and frustrated learner.
Q. What is the difference between DRI and DRA?
A. Differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior (DRI) delivers reinforcement for a
behavior that is topographically dissimilar to the problem behavior. In this way, the
replacement behavior and the problem behavior cannot be displayed at the same time.
Examples might include reinforcing in-seat behavior instead of out-of-seat behavior or
working on homework instead of sleeping at desk. Differential reinforcement of
alternative behavior (DRA) reinforces the occurrence of a target behavior that is
different from the problem behavior but not necessarily topographically incompatible.
For example, teaching a child to ask for items instead of hitting another child would not
prevent both behaviors from occurring at the same time but strengthening the former
helps to minimize the latter from occurring. Although both are commonly used to teach a
variety of behaviors, some factors can influence effective use. As mentioned above,
think about what target behavior is within the learner's repertoire, that the learner uses
with consistency, that facilitates more skill development, and be supported in the
learner's natural environment.
Q. The DRO schedule has not produced a reduction in the problem behavior.
What might be the reason(s) for this?
A. There are several reasons that a DRO schedule may not be effective. Some
suggestions to consider are:
o
o
o
Make sure that the selected DRO time interval is consistent with the learner's
performance during the baseline condition. This means that the time interval cannot
differ from whatever was recorded during the baseline condition. If the learner
tolerated 5 minutes of staying seated before getting up to run around the room, then
the initial time interval to refrain from engaging in the problem behavior is
established at 5 minutes or less. If the learner can refrain from body rocking for
one-minute, setting the time interval at one-minute or even 45 seconds will be the
place to start
Keep data on the learner's response to the program to determine the size of change
that can be tolerated without disrupting teaching. If behavior continues to worsen,
perhaps this change is in response to the larger DRO interval and the size of the
interval should be decreased until the behavior is again under control. The DRO
interval can then be lengthened in smaller, more gradual steps to maintain control.
Examine the reinforcement that is delivered at the end of the DRO interval.
Reinforcement should only be delivered when the problem behavior did not occur
during the interval, as well as no other inappropriate behavior. It is important that
the learner not receive reinforcement from another source, otherwise there is less
reason for the learner to cooperate with the intervention program.
o
o
Evaluate how rewarding or motivating the reinforcer is to the learner. If the reward
is not important or worthwhile to the learner, he/she will be less likely to work for it.
Combine DRO with other reductive procedures or intervention strategies to
increase its practical value. Observe whether there are other inappropriate
behaviors that might need to be extinguished or addressed, additional teaching
systems such as self-management that might assist, or consequences that might
need to be added to successfully eliminate problem behaviors.
Q. When is it appropriate to use DRL?
A. Differential reinforcement of low rates of responding (DRL) is an appropriate
procedure to use when the goal is not to eliminate a behavior but to reduce its
occurrence to a more acceptable level. There are many behaviors that when used in
excess might be irritating or annoying and DRL offers effective strategies to reduce
these behaviors to tolerable rates. Examples may include incessant question-asking,
talking out loud, rapid eating, or frequent hair brushing. Keep in mind that this procedure
requires constant observation and timing and frequent reinforcement, which might be
hard to implement in a room full of learners. It may require additional personnel,
especially in the initial stages.
Q. Is there one differential reinforcement procedure that is better than the others?
A. The short answer is that each comes with advantages and disadvantages. DRI/DRA
and DRO aim to strengthen behaviors to replace an inappropriate or problematic
behavior, whereas DRL attempts to reduce but not eliminate a behavior. DRO does not
specify which behaviors to reinforce, but DRO does allow a wider number of behaviors
to be reinforced. It is possible then for DRO to develop and strengthen collateral, or
non-targeted behaviors, that are important for the learner to sustain progress. The major
difference is that with DRI/DRA the adult measures the development of the
incompatible/alternative behavior and target behavior, whereas with DRO the learner's
behavior (other than the behavior selected for reduction) determines which alternate
behavior will be targeted and measured. Overall, the decision of which differential
reinforcement to use should be made by observing and collecting data of the problem
behavior across relevant people, environments, and contexts and also determined by
the type of replacement behavior (if appropriate) to introduce in lieu of the problem
behavior. Finally, the parents and learner (if appropriate) should also be interviewed to
determine which procedure will enable the most significant positive change to occur and
lead to an enhanced quality of life for the entire family.
Discussion Questions
[ Export PDF with Answers | Export PDF without Answers ]
1. What are the benefits of using differential reinforcement?
A correct answer should include a statement such as:
o
o
o
Differential reinforcement is an effective and humane procedure for
decreasing or eliminating maladaptive behaviors.
There are no ethical or legal issues in using differential reinforcement
procedures compared to other reductive techniques (e.g., extinction,
punishment, aversive stimulation, restraints).
Reinforcement occurs regardless of which procedure is used, thus
encouraging and strengthening the use of other, positive behaviors.
2. What steps should occur in preparation for implementing
differential reinforcement?
A correct answer should include a statement such as:
o
o
o
Data should be taken by all team members that are familiar with the
learner to determine the function of the problem behavior and to select
the appropriate differential reinforcement procedure to implement the
behavior change.
A description of the problem behavior and replacement (or target)
behavior should be adapted into a form that the learner (if appropriate)
can comprehend. Examples of adapted descriptions include simple
written descriptions and pictorial depictions, if needed to convey the
meaning to the learner.
Steps of how to conduct and enforce the differential reinforcement
procedure, including the stimuli and schedule of reinforcement, the
setting(s) in which it will occur, and the person(s) responsible for
implementing and monitoring data, and whether other intervention
procedures will be embedded should be decided beforehand.
o
Discussion on whether other intervention procedures will be embedded
should the learner not respond to the selected differential reinforcement
procedure should be considered among team members.
3. What can be done to increase the likelihood that the
problem behavior will respond to differential
reinforcement?
A correct answer should include a statement such as:
o
o
o
o
o
Take detailed data to identify all functions for the problem behavior (e.g.,
when does it occur, with whom, under what situations, what does the
behavior look like)
Make sure that all persons (both adults and peers) who come into regular
contact with the learner consistently withhold reinforcement of the
problem behavior, as well as deliver reinforcement according to the
established schedule or occurrence of the target, replacement behavior.
Select functional and meaningful replacement behaviors to teach the
learner that will take the place of the problem behavior.
Select replacement behaviors that are within the learner's repertoire or
skill set (and therefore can be taught to the learner within a short period of
time) and that will be reinforced by others on a consistent basis.
Aim to be preventive so that the learner has no reason to exhibit the
problem behavior (e.g., remove antecedents or triggers from the
environment; select powerful, motivating reinforcers to encourage the use
of the desirable behaviors; or remove or mask the consequence to the
problem behavior).
4. Describe a learner that you think would benefit from
differential reinforcement. What skills need to be targeted
for intervention? Which differential reinforcement
procedure is most suitable to implement (based on the
learner's needs, the teaching environment and other
available resources) and which procedure is less
beneficial?
Answers to this question will vary. Each answer should be supported by
content derived from the module, but should vary based on the individual
learner being described.
5. Continuing your answer to Question 4, think of a learner
with ASD that you feel would benefit from differential
reinforcement. How would you respond if the learner's
behavior became worse or did not respond to the
procedure? Justify your answer based on the learner's
individual characteristics.
Answers to this question will vary. Each answer should be supported by
content derived from the module, but specific answers do not have to come
directly from the module as long as they are justified based on the individual
characteristics of the learner. When it comes to individualizing an intervention,
creativity should be encouraged as long as the proposed ideas seem feasible,
humane, and ethical.
Post-Assessment
Post-Assessment
Differential reinforcement uses positive reductive procedures to increase appropriate
behaviors, thereby reducing or eliminating interfering behavior (e.g., tantrums,
aggression, self-injury, stereotypies).
Select an answer for question 552
Differential reinforcement procedures differ from other reductive techniques (e.g.,
extinction, punishment, physical restraints) in that behavior is altered with reinforcement
rather than:
Select an answer for question 553
Which is NOT a differential reinforcement procedure?
Select an answer for question 555
Which below best defines differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior (DRI)?
Select an answer for question 556
Which of the following best describes the use of DRO procedures?
Select an answer for question 557
Differential reinforcement of low rates (DRL) consistently produces low rates of
responding.
Select an answer for question 558
What is the first step in applying a differential reinforcement procedure?
Select an answer for question 559
Which of the following features need to be incorporated when designing a differential
reinforcement intervention program?
Select an answer for question 560
Citation and References
Vismara, L., Bogin, J., Sullivan, L. (2010). Differential reinforcement: Online training
module. (Sacramento, CA: National Professional Development Center on Autism
Spectrum Disorders, M.I.N.D.Institute, University of California Davis). In Ohio Center for
Autism and Low Incidence (OCALI), Autism Internet Modules,
www.autisminternetmodules.org. Columbus, OH: OCALI.
References
Adelinis, J.D., Piazza, C.C., & Goh, H.L. (2001). Treatment of multiply controlled
destructive behavior with food reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34,
97-100.
Deitz, D.E.D., & Repp, A.C. (1983). Reducing behavior through reinforcement.
Exceptional Education Quarterly, 3, 34-46.
Jones, K.M., & Friman, P.C. (1999). A case study of behavioral assessment and
treatment of insect phobia. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 95-98.
Kazdin, A.E. (1980). Acceptability of alternative treatments for deviant child behavior.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 259-273.
Lalli, J.S., Vollmer, T.R., Progar, P.R., Wright, C., Borrero, J., Daniel, D., Barthold, C.H.,
Tocco, K., & May, W. (1999). Competition between positive and negative reinforcement
in the treatment of escape behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 285-296.
Lee, R., McComas, J.J., & Jawor, J. (2002). The effects of differential and lag
reinforcement schedules on varied verbal responding by individuals with autism. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 391-402.
Luiselli, J.K. (1980). Controlling disruptive behaviors of an autistic child: Parentmediated contingency management in the home setting. Education and Treatment of
Children, 3, 195-203.
Miller, N., & Neuringer, A. (2000). Reinforcing variability in adolescents with autism.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 151-165.
Newman, B., Tuntigina, L., Ryan, C.S., & Reinecke, D.R. (1997). Self-management of a
DRO procedure by three students with autism. Behavioral Intervention, 12, 149-156.
Patel, M.R., Carr, J.E., & Kim, C. (2000). Functional analysis of aberrant behavior
maintained by automatic reinforcement: Assessments of specific sensory reinforcers.
Research in Developmental Disabilities, 21, 393-407.
Piazza, C.C., Moes, D.R., & Fisher, W. W. (1996). Differential reinforcement of
alternative behavior and demand fading in the treatment of escape-maintained and
destructive behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 569-572.
Schwartz, B. (1982). Reinforcement-induced behavioral stereotypy: How not to teach
people to discover rules. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 23-59.
Shabani, D.B., & Fisher, W.W. (2006). Stimulus fading and differential reinforcement for
the treatment of needle phobia in a youth with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 39, 449-452.
Shabani, D.B., Katz, R.C., Wilder, D.A., Beauchamp, K., Taylor, C.R., & Fischer, K.J.
(2002). Increasing social initiations in children with autism: Effects of a tactile prompt.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 79-83.
Singh, N.N., & Katz, R.C. (1985). On the modification of acceptability ratings for
alternative child treatments. Behavior Modification, 9, 375-386.
Stokes, T.F., & Kennedy, S.H. (1980). Reducing child uncooperative behavior during
dental treatment through modeling and reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 13, 41-49.
Taylor, B.A., Hoch, H., & Weissman, M. (2005). The analysis and treatment of vocal
stereotypy in a child with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 20, 239-253.
Williams, G., Donley, C.R., & Keller, J.W. (2000). Teaching children with autism to ask
questions about hidden objects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 627-630.