Skip to Content

Differential Reinforcement – Types, Examples & When To Use

For many years, differential reinforcement (DR), commonly called Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior (DRA), is the preferred treatment for reducing disruptive and non-compliant behaviors in developmentally disabled children​1​.

Reinforcement is a type of operant conditioning that increases the likelihood of a desirable behavior by giving a reward or removing an aversive stimulus after that behavior occurs.

As a result, the desired behavior is “controlled” by its consequences​2​.

For example, a child who brushes his teeth receives a sticker. This reinforcement of behaviors strengthens the association between toothbrushing and receiving a sticker.

A mother scolds her children making a mess of toys on the floor.

What is differential reinforcement?

Differential reinforcement is reinforcing a target behavior while withholding reinforcement from an unwanted behavior.

The goal is to replace unwanted behaviors with desirable behaviors.

Specifically, DRA is prevalently by those who practice Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) on children with autism spectrum​3​.

When a targeted behavior is followed by a reward, called reinforcer, it is more likely to repeat​4​.

If, at the same time, reinforcer is withheld from an unwanted behavior, then this differential reinforcement arrangement places the unwanted behavior on extinction and replaces it by an appropriate one.

How to use differential reinforcement?

Differential reinforcement procedures are widely used by parents and teachers in daily lives.

For instance, a teacher ignores a student who speaks up without raising his hand, but responds to him when he does raise his hand before he speaks.

The teacher’s eye contact and verbal attention is a positive reinforcement that is only given when the acceptable behavior appears, but not when an unaccepted one is shown.

A parent rewards the toddler with a candy when she uses the potty correctly, but withholds the candy when she doesn’t. Candy is the reinforcer in this case.

In hospital, DRA is used to extinguish self-injurious behavior in patients​5​.

Researchers found that reserving the most preferred reinforcer for unprompted appropriate behavior can enhance new skill acquisition​6​.

What are the types of differential reinforcement?

There are different types of DR, all of which entail reinforcing one class of behavior while withholding from another. The four most researched types are differential reinforcement of alternate behavior, differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior, differential reinforcement of other behavior, and differential reinforcement of low rates. They vary in the type of behavior being reinforced​7​.

Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior (DRA)

DRA reinforces a pre-determined target behavior that is an alternative to the unwanted behavior.

The simplest example of this would be a teacher trying to teach a student to raise their hand before talking in class. 

Student raising their hand before speaking is an appropriate alternative behavior to simply speaking out.

Differential Reinforcement of Incompatible Behavior (DRI)

DRI reinforces a physically incompatible behavior to replace the unwanted behavior.

This means it’s impossible to perform both behaviors at the same time.

For example, if you’re trying to teach a child to remain seated in class, you’re going to provide reinforcement when they are in their seat and withhold reinforcement when they are out of their seat.

A child cannot have in and out of seat behavior at the same time, and so the positive and negative behaviors are physically incompatible.

Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior (DRO)

DRO reinforces any behavior other than the unwanted behavior.

This is usually done by setting a time interval, and if the inappropriate behavior doesn’t occur during this time period, reinforcement is provided.

One problem with using DRO is that since the reinforcement is given contingent only on the non-occurrence of the target behavior, other challenging behaviors might occur instead and become reinforced.

Because of this limitation, DRO is usually applied with an aversive contingency in order to be effective.

Differential reinforcement of low rates (DRL)

DRL reinforces at the end of an instructional session if the problem behavior occurred during the entire session at or below a predetermined criterion.

The goal is usually to decrease the frequency of recurring behaviors, not to eliminate them entirely.

Differential reinforcement in parenting

DR is the method of choice in many positive parenting programs​8​ or intervention treatment for problem behavior in children.

It is proven to be effective in changing a child’s behavior in a clinical environment and in the short term ​9​.

However, the extent of time these behavior changes can maintain is highly variable, from one session to one year at the longest​10​.

In a study of self-injurious behavior, 62% of subjects relapsed following the DR treatment.

When the unwanted behaviors return, they become more resistant to extinction​11​.

Effectiveness, criticisms, and when not to use reinforcement

DR works on the principles of behaviorism, which does not take into account the mental processes of an individual.

In other words, DR assumes that you can train your child to adopt or give up certain behavior just as well as you can train a monkey, rat or pigeon as these were the animals used to establish the potency of reinforcement.

We know that cannot be true.

Our children are more complicated and sophisticated than lab animals.

Because humans can think. We have a mind which contains mental processes that have important effects on our behavior.

Neglecting them means we could be ignoring an important aspect of the unwanted behavior. 

Final Thoughts

In summary, differential reinforcement involves withholding reinforcement for unwanted behavior and providing it only to an appropriate replacement behavior.

Research has shown that it is an effective tool for changing behavior in children in the short term, but long term effectiveness has been proven questionable.

References

  1. 1.
    Marcus BA, Vollmer TR. COMBINING NONCONTINGENT REINFORCEMENT AND DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULES AS TREATMENT FOR ABERRANT BEHAVIOR. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. Published online March 1996:43-51. doi:10.1901/jaba.1996.29-43
  2. 2.
    Staddon JER, Cerutti DT. Operant Conditioning. Annu Rev Psychol. Published online February 2003:115-144. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145124
  3. 3.
    Lennox DB, Miltenberger RG, Spengler P, Erfanian N. Decelerative treatment practices with persons who have mental retardation: A review of five years of the literature. American Journal on Mental Retardation. 1988;92(6):492–501. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1989-02420-001
  4. 4.
    Kalat JW. Introduction to Psychology. Cengage Learning; 2021.
  5. 5.
    Vollmer TR, Iwata BA, Zarcone JR, Smith RG, Mazaleski JL. THE ROLE OF ATTENTION IN THE TREATMENT OF ATTENTION-MAINTAINED SELF-INJURIOUS BEHAVIOR: NONCONTINGENT REINFORCEMENT AND DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT OF OTHER BEHAVIOR. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. Published online March 1993:9-21. doi:10.1901/jaba.1993.26-9
  6. 6.
    Karsten AM, Carr JE. THE EFFECTS OF DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT OF UNPROMPTED RESPONDING ON THE SKILL ACQUISITION OF CHILDREN WITH AUTISM. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. Published online June 2009:327-334. doi:10.1901/jaba.2009.42-327
  7. 7.
    Chowdhury M, Benson BA. Use of differential reinforcement to reduce behavior problems in adults with intellectual disabilities: A methodological review. Research in Developmental Disabilities. Published online March 2011:383-394. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2010.11.015
  8. 8.
    Thomas R, Zimmer-Gembeck MJ. Behavioral Outcomes of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy and Triple P—Positive Parenting Program: A Review and Meta-Analysis. J Abnorm Child Psychol. Published online February 27, 2007:475-495. doi:10.1007/s10802-007-9104-9
  9. 9.
    Pipkin CStP, Vollmer TR, Sloman KN. EFFECTS OF TREATMENT INTEGRITY FAILURES DURING DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT OF ALTERNATIVE BEHAVIOR: A TRANSLATIONAL MODEL. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. Published online March 2010:47-70. doi:10.1901/jaba.2010.43-47
  10. 10.
    Osnes PG, Lieblein T. An explicit technology of generalization. The Behavior Analyst Today. Published online 2003:364-374. doi:10.1037/h0099994
  11. 11.
    Mace FC, McComas JJ, Mauro BC, et al. DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT OF ALTERNATIVE BEHAVIOR INCREASES RESISTANCE TO EXTINCTION: CLINICAL DEMONSTRATION, ANIMAL MODELING, AND CLINICAL TEST OF ONE SOLUTION. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. Published online May 2010:349-367. doi:10.1901/jeab.2010.93-349

    Disclaimer

    * All information on parentingforbrain.com is for educational purposes only. Parenting For Brain does not provide medical advice. If you suspect medical problems or need professional advice, please consult a physician. *