On the definition of differential reinforcement of alternative behavior

Abstract

Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) has a long history as a behavioral treatment. The term has usually been defined in a manner that suggests one form of behavior (usually some appropriate alternative) is reinforced, while another form of behavior (usually problem behavior) is placed on extinction. In this paper, we will suggest that DRA should not require extinction, either procedurally or by definition. Ideally, problem behavior would be placed on extinction when possible; however, when problem behavior is not or cannot be placed on extinction, the procedure used is still DRA. Thus, we propose the following definition: Providing greater reinforcement, along at least one dimension, contingent on the occurrence of one form or type of behavior, while minimizing reinforcement for another form or type of behavior.

Accumulated and distributed response–reinforcer arrangements during the treatment of escape‐maintained problem behavior

“…The treatment may involve delivering a positive (often simply referred to as DRA) or negative reinforcer (differential negative reinforcement; DNRA) following the occurrence of a specific alternative behavior such as compliance, while, ideally, problem behavior is placed on extinction (Lalli et al, 1999;Vollmer & Iwata, 1992). However, it is not always possible to withhold escape (Vollmer et al, 2020) as these procedures typically involve providing physical guidance while the individual engages in problem behavior, which can place therapists and caregivers at risk for injury. Thus, developing procedures to enhance the efficacy of DRA and DNRA without extinction are of significant practical importance (e.g., DeLeon et al, 2001;Lalli et al, 1999;Slocum & Vollmer, 2015;Vollmer et al, 1999).…”

Applications of the matching law to observe shifts in problem behavior: A proof‐of‐concept study

“…Components included didactic teaching, role play, modeling, and feedback, and the feedback was given while they were interacting with their child. Although we emphasized teaching the parents differential reinforcement during those conditions that were identified as most problematic during the FA, we taught a general strategy of minimizing reinforcers for problem behavior and maximizing reinforcers for appropriate behavior (Vollmer et al, 2020). We opted for this more general method of differential reinforcement because we had observed parents delivering consequences that either were or could become problematic under various conditions (e.g., for a child with escape behavior, a parent delivered attention and a tangible during a screaming episode).…”

“…At times, during DRA, both problem behavior and appropriate behavior are reinforced. The problem behavior continues to be reinforced for various reasons, including but not limited to, safety and integrity failures (Vollmer et al, 2020).…”

“…Because the definition of DRA historically has included an extinction component (e.g., Vollmer & Iwata, 1992), Vollmer et al (2020) proposed a definition to include "providing greater reinforcement, along at least one dimension, contingent on the occurrence of alternative desirable behavior, while minimizing reinforcement for problem behavior." This broader definition of DRA aligns with the matching literature (Reed & Kaplan, 2011;Shahan & Craig, 2017).…”

“…If a goal is to reduce problem behavior and increase appropriate behavior, more reinforcers must be allocated toward the appropriate response relative to problem behavior. Therefore, practitioners and parents might need to manipulate parameters that will shift response allocation to the appropriate behavior rather than problem behavior (e.g., Athens & Vollmer, 2010;Borrero et al, 2010;Briggs et al, 2019;Hoch et al, 2002;Rogalski et al, 2020;Stuesser & Roscoe, 2020;Vollmer et al, 2020). Such parameters of interest might include the rate, duration, quality, or immediacy of the reinforcer (Athens & Vollmer, 2010;Kunnavatana et al, 2018;Neef et al, 1994).…”