Differential reinforcement in ABA is one of the most powerful, versatile, and ethical tools we have for shaping behavior. It’s the backbone of countless intervention plans because it does something elegant: it strengthens what we want while reducing what we don’t. When used intentionally, it supports client autonomy, maintains dignity, and aligns beautifully with compassionate, trauma-assumed ABA.

Yet many practitioners—even seasoned BCBAs®—struggle to keep the distinctions clear across DRA, DRI, DRO, DRL, and DRH, or to decide which procedure best fits a specific clinical presentation. This guide removes the confusion and gives you a clean, practitioner-centered roadmap for selecting, implementing, and ethically refining differential reinforcement procedures.

Whether you’re rewriting outdated plans, coaching RBTs, or designing next-level skill-building programs, you’ll find everything you need to use differential reinforcement with precision and confidence.

Key Takeaways

• Differential reinforcement in ABA strengthens desired behaviors while reducing target behaviors through strategic reinforcement.

• There are five major differential reinforcement procedures: DRA, DRI, DRO, DRL, and DRH.

• DR can be used for behavior reduction or skill acquisition, depending on how reinforcers and criteria are arranged.

• Choosing the correct DR procedure requires clear functional assessment, ethical consideration, and contextual fit.

• DR interventions are most effective when they support functional communication, client dignity, and meaningful outcomes.

What Is Differential Reinforcement in ABA?

Differential reinforcement in ABA is a behavior-change strategy that strengthens one response while reducing others. Instead of focusing solely on stopping challenging behavior, differential reinforcement teaches learners what to do instead—a far more compassionate and effective approach.

At its core, differential reinforcement has two moving parts:

1. Reinforce a desired or replacement behavior, and

2. Withhold (or reduce) reinforcement for the target (undesired) behavior.

Despite sounding simple, DR procedures require thoughtful selection of what to reinforce and how to deliver reinforcement. When implemented well, they produce powerful changes in both skill acquisition and behavior reduction.

The 5 Main Types of Differential Reinforcement in ABA

There are five DR procedures every BCBA® must master:

• DRA – Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior
  Reinforce an appropriate alternative behavior that serves the same function.

• DRI – Differential Reinforcement of Incompatible Behavior
  Reinforce a behavior the learner cannot perform at the same time as the target behavior.

• DRO – Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior
  Reinforce the absence of the target behavior for a defined interval.

• DRL – Differential Reinforcement of Lower Rates of Behavior
  Reinforce reduced—but not eliminated—rates of a behavior.

• DRH – Differential Reinforcement of Higher Rates of Behavior
  Reinforce increased rates of an already existing, appropriate behavior.

Each procedure has different implications for treatment planning, skill development, and ethical decision-making.

When Differential Reinforcement Is Used in ABA

You can apply differential reinforcement in three broad scenarios:

1. To decrease challenging behavior
Examples: aggression, screaming, elopement, PICA, stereotypy.

2. To increase appropriate or functional behaviors
Examples: communication, hand-raising, task completion, waiting.

3. To adjust behavior that is appropriate but occurring at the wrong rate
Examples:

• requesting help too frequently → DRL

• initiating peer interactions infrequently → DRH

This flexibility is what makes differential reinforcement one of the most powerful and frequently used tools in ABA.

Why Differential Reinforcement Is an Ethical First-Line Strategy

High-quality ABA avoids punitive approaches and prioritizes reinforcement-based learning. Differential reinforcement supports that philosophy because:

• It promotes dignity by teaching functional replacement skills.

• It does not require aversive consequences.

• It strengthens behaviors that help learners navigate their world more independently.

Modern ABA is moving toward reinforcement-dense environments, and DR procedures fit perfectly within that framework.

The Role of Extinction in DRO Procedures

DRO procedures are most commonly effective when combined with extinction. Extinction is a behavior reduction procedure in which you withhold reinforcement for a previously reinforced behavior. While it may be impractical or unsafe to withhold reinforcement for some behaviors, the effects of DRO can be compounded when the target behavior receives no reinforcement.

Keep in mind the risk of an extinction burst (the behavior escalating once extinction is implemented). Make sure that you are prepared to work through the extinction burst prior to implementing extinction. Extinction can also be unethical, harmful, or perceived as abusive in some situations. Although some studies show differential reinforcement procedures may be more effective when combined with extinction, there is an important growing recognition of the potential harmful effects of extinction.

The Matching Law is an effective alternative to the use of extinction in DR procedures. Learn more in our post Matching Law: Practical Applications in ABA and in the video below:

Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior (DRA)

Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior (DRA) is one of the most widely used and flexible differential reinforcement strategies in ABA. The premise is simple: identify the function of the challenging behavior, then reinforce an appropriate alternative behavior that produces the same outcome. When the replacement response is truly functionally equivalent, DRA is powerful—and the research supports that.

One study from Karsten & Carr (2009) showed that when alternative behaviors were reinforced specifically when emitted independently, learners acquired skills more rapidly. This reinforces a critical point: alternative behavior must not only be appropriate, but also meaningfully valuable to the learner.

How DRA Works in Practice

Start by identifying why the behavior occurs (the function), then select a replacement behavior that gives access to the same reinforcer.

Here are examples that illustrate the logic:

Example 1: Chewing on a shirt
Function: automatic reinforcement (sensory feedback)
DRA replacement: providing a chewable item
You may need to sweeten the deal in the beginning—extra praise, tokens, or access to preferred items—to increase the likelihood the learner chooses the chew over the shirt.

Example 2: Swearing to get peer attention
Function: socially mediated access
DRA replacement: reinforcing joke-telling or another socially appropriate behavior
You reinforce attention-seeking through a socially successful alternative instead of punishing the inappropriate form.

What matters is that the replacement behavior competes with the reinforcer maintaining the maladaptive one.

Communication Often Becomes the Alternative Behavior

Many DRA procedures take the form of Functional Communication Training (FCT). Communication isn’t always the only replacement behavior, but it is frequently:

• easy to teach

• easy to generalize

• powerful in reducing problem behavior maintained by social contingencies

If you want a deeper dive, link to your FCT post as an internal SEO boost.

When DRA Works Best (and Why)

Research by Athens & Vollmer (2010) demonstrated that even when problem behavior continues to produce reinforcement, you can dramatically shift responding if you manipulate the quality, duration, or immediacy of reinforcement for the alternative behavior. This is huge because it means:

You don’t always need full extinction for DRA to be effective.

That’s a message your compassionate ABA framework should emphasize.

Practical Guidelines for Using DRA Effectively

Here’s how to ensure your DRA program actually produces durable behavior change:

Choose a replacement behavior that is:

• Functionally equivalent (this is non-negotiable)

• Socially valid

• Easy for the learner to do under stress

• Likely to contact reinforcement naturally over time

Teach the replacement before expecting performance.
Legray et al. (2013) found that "pre-teaching" the alternative behavior significantly improved outcomes—an underused strategy among early-career BCBAs®.

Reinforce the alternative behavior more strongly than the problem behavior.
This aligns beautifully with the Matching Law research.

Plan for generalization early.
DRA fails when the replacement behavior only works with one person, in one setting, or under one very narrow condition.

When DRA Is Not Enough

Although DRA is often a gold-standard approach, it cannot stand alone when:

• the replacement behavior doesn’t fully compete with the reinforcer

• the learner lacks the prerequisite skills

• the environment continues to reinforce the problem behavior more richly

In these cases, DRA should be combined with prompting, antecedent strategies, schedule thinning, or—carefully—components of extinction or alternative reinforcement schedules.

DRO: Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior

Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior (DRO) is often seen as the “simple” member of the differential reinforcement family, but that simplicity can be misleading. DRO reinforces the absence of a problem behavior for a specified interval of time. Reinforcement is delivered not because a learner performed a particular skill, but because the target behavior didn’t occur.

For BCBAs®, DRO can be an incredibly powerful tool—especially when safety is a concern or when the function of behavior remains unclear. But it also carries risks that demand thoughtful planning and ethically grounded decision-making.

In this video, Hitomi Wada uses a fun work example to demonstrate the use of DRO to reduce workplace gossip.

What DRO Really Does

When you implement a DRO procedure, you establish:

1. A clearly defined target behavior

2. A preset interval (fixed or variable)

3. A reinforcement contingency: the learner receives reinforcement if the interval ends without the problem behavior occurring

If the behavior occurs, the interval resets (in whole-interval DRO) or reinforcement is simply withheld until the next scheduled moment (in momentary DRO).

This is why DRO is often described as a time-based reinforcement system rather than a response-based one.

When DRO Is an Appropriate Choice

You reach for a DRO procedure when:

• The target behavior is dangerous and must decrease quickly.
  Severe aggression, self-injury, and PICA often demand an immediate reduction before you can safely build replacement skills.

• The function is unclear or multiply maintained.
  DRO doesn’t depend on your ability to match reinforcement to function. This makes it a viable option when a functional analysis is impractical or unsafe.

• You need a straightforward procedure for caregivers or teachers.
  DRO is conceptually intuitive, easy to train, and often receives high social validity ratings—especially compared to procedures that feel more complex or counterintuitive.

Research supports DRO’s effectiveness under these conditions. In fact, Waters, Lerman, and Hovanetz (2009) demonstrated that adding DRO to a transition routine reduced problem behavior even when visual schedules alone were insufficient. This reinforces the practical value of DRO as part of a thoughtful treatment package rather than a standalone tool.

Advantages That Make DRO Appealing

BCBAs® choose DRO because it offers:

• Simplicity and reliability for non-specialists
  Teachers, paraprofessionals, and parents can learn and implement DRO with a high degree of fidelity.

• Rapid decreases in target behavior
  Particularly when matched reinforcers are used.

• Flexibility across settings and intensities
  DRO adapts well to classrooms, homes, clinics, and community environments.

• Compatibility with token economies and other reinforcement systems
  This is especially helpful when you want to shape longer periods of appropriate behavior without withholding acknowledgment for extended stretches.

The Risks: What BCBAs® Must Anticipate and Avoid

Because DRO reinforces the absence of behavior, it also introduces several common pitfalls:

1. Reinforcing replacement behaviors you didn’t intend to reinforce

If aggression is the target but screaming occurs during the interval, screaming will still contact reinforcement as long as it’s not part of the operational definition of aggression. This is one of the biggest ethical and practical risks.

2. DRO doesn’t teach new skills

DRO reduces behavior but does not build communication, coping, flexibility, or self-advocacy. Without a replacement behavior, the learner will fill that void with something—possibly something less adaptive.

3. Extinction bursts may occur

When DRO is combined with extinction, you can expect behavior to escalate before it decreases. For dangerous behaviors, that escalation can pose safety and ethical issues.

4. DRO may be perceived as punitive

To the learner, the contingency can feel like “you only get reinforcement when you don’t mess up”—especially if they are frequently unsuccessful. That framing undermines therapeutic rapport and long-term skill acquisition.

5. The intervention can unintentionally suppress appropriate behavior

Some learners may avoid opportunities, social interactions, or challenging tasks to “stay safe” and maintain access to reinforcement.

Best Practices for Ethical and Effective DRO

Strong BCBAs® elevate DRO by implementing it thoughtfully, intentionally, and compassionately.

Here’s how to do that:

Pair DRO with explicit skill acquisition

Even though DRO doesn’t directly teach new behaviors, your plan should. Build in functional communication skills, self-regulation tools, coping strategies, or contextually appropriate alternatives.

Use reinforcers that compete with the maintaining variables

DRO becomes dramatically more effective when the reinforcer matches the suspected function—even if you haven’t confirmed the function.

Choose interval types strategically

• Whole-interval DRO reduces behavior more quickly.

• Momentary DRO is easier to implement in busy environments and can maintain low rates with less effort.

Shape intervals gradually

Set the initial interval well below baseline and increase it systematically. This keeps reinforcement flowing, motivation high, and behavior momentum stable.

Monitor for unintended side effects

If new maladaptive behaviors emerge, adjust quickly. DRO is not a “set-and-forget” intervention.

Use token economies when appropriate

Token systems make DRO more feasible during long activities and help learners access reinforcement without waiting for extended periods.

Why DRO Belongs in a BCBA’s® Toolbox—But Not Alone

Differential reinforcement in ABA is strongest when it builds up desirable behavior, not just suppresses undesirable behavior. DRO is a powerful reduction strategy, but it should never be your entire plan. When you integrate DRO into a broader, learner-centered intervention package—one grounded in skill acquisition, stakeholder training, functional assessment, and compassionate practice—it becomes an invaluable lever for meaningful, lasting behavior change.

Differential Reinforcement of Incompatible Behavior (DRI)

Differential Reinforcement of Incompatible Behavior (DRI) is a powerful subset of differential reinforcement in ABA, and it often becomes a clinician’s go-to strategy when the goal is to immediately block the learner’s ability to engage in the problem behavior. Unlike a DRA procedure—which reinforces any functionally equivalent alternative response—DRI specifically targets behaviors that cannot physically occur at the same time as the maladaptive behavior.

That one feature gives DRI tremendous practical value for learners who engage in severe or high-frequency behavior. If the learner cannot do both behaviors simultaneously, your reinforcement automatically shifts their momentum toward safer, more productive responses.

How DRI Works in Practice

The heart of DRI is simple:

1. Identify the behavior you want to replace.

2. Select a behavior that is functionally matched and physically incompatible.

3. Reinforce that incompatible behavior every time it occurs.

4. Withhold reinforcement for the target behavior.

Let’s look at some real examples:

• A learner hits to escape a difficult task.

  • Incompatible behavior: writing “help” on a whiteboard or handing over a “break please” card.

  • The learner cannot hit and simultaneously complete the motor action required for the new response.

• A learner runs from the table to access toys.

  • Incompatible behavior: staying seated and raising a hand to request a turn.

  • Sitting still prevents elopement by definition.

The power of DRI is that it makes the “right” behavior easier and the “wrong” behavior harder—not through punishment, but through clean, consistent reinforcement contingencies.

DRI in the Research

Research consistently supports the use of DRI when the incompatible behavior also addresses the function of the target behavior.

Carr et al. (1990) noted that DRI is far more effective when clinicians reinforce a response that meets the learner’s needs, rather than simply reinforcing any behavior that happens to be incompatible. When form and function align, learners adopt the new behavior more quickly and maintain it more reliably.

Other studies highlight creative applications of DRI. Daly and Ranalli (2003), for example, combined DRA/DRI with self-monitoring “Countoons,” helping learners track both the incompatible behavior and the reward they could earn by choosing it. The procedure boosted independence and generalization—two outcomes every BCBA® loves to see.

These findings reinforce an essential principle: DRI is most successful when the response is both incompatible and meaningful.

Choosing an Effective Incompatible Behavior

Before committing to DRI, ask yourself two questions:

1. Does the incompatible behavior truly block the problem behavior?
   If not, you’re using a DRA, not a DRI.

2. Does the incompatible behavior give the learner access to the same reinforcer as the target behavior?
   If not, the learner may continue engaging in the maladaptive behavior because it still “works” better.

For example, “quiet voice” may be incompatible with screaming, but if screaming functions to access a tangible, reinforcing quiet voice does nothing to help the learner meet that need. It is incompatible—but not functional.

A strong DRI targets both sides of the equation.

When DRI Is Most Useful

Use DRI when:

• You need a clear, unambiguous replacement behavior.

• The maladaptive behavior poses a safety risk or occurs at high intensity.

• There is a motor pattern or posture that naturally prevents the problem behavior.

• A functionally matched incompatible behavior is easy to teach and reinforce.

DRI tends to work beautifully when the learner benefits from structure, clarity, and immediate feedback—especially in early learning environments or during early intervention.

Differential Reinforcement of Low Rates (DRL)

Differential Reinforcement of Low Rates (DRL) is your go-to procedure when a behavior is appropriate but occurs too often. Unlike DRO—where any occurrence resets the interval—DRL teaches the learner to moderate their responding. The goal is reduction, not elimination.

You’re shaping pacing, fluency, and self-regulation.

When DRL Makes Sense

Use DRL when the behavior itself is valuable, but the rate is problematic. Examples include:

• A student raises their hand so often that peers lose opportunities.

• A learner asks for help repeatedly instead of building independence.

• A child eats too quickly and risks choking or discomfort.

• An employee rushes through tasks and makes avoidable errors.

These are not behaviors you want to eliminate—only refine.

Three DRL Variations

1. Spaced-Responding DRL

• Reinforcement is delivered only when there is a minimum amount of time between responses.

• You are shaping longer interresponse times (IRT).

• Best for slowing down behaviors like fast eating, rapid answering, or calling out.

Example:
If baseline shows the learner asks for help every 2 minutes, you might reinforce only when at least 3 minutes pass between requests. Over time, you stretch the interval.

2. Interval DRL

• The session is divided into equal intervals.

• The learner receives reinforcement if the number of responses stays below a set limit within each interval.

• Best when the learner cannot tolerate delayed reinforcement.

Example:
During a 60-minute class broken into 10-minute intervals, the criterion might be “no more than one help request per interval.”

3. Full-Session DRL

• Reinforcement depends on the total number of responses during the whole session.

• The simplest for teachers and busy RBTs to implement.

• Works well for classroom behaviors like hand-raising or asking for help.

Example:
If baseline shows 12 hand-raises per class period, set the initial criterion at 10, then gradually reduce.

Setting Initial Criteria

A common error is setting criteria too high and unintentionally placing the behavior on extinction. Instead:

• Review baseline rate or IRT.

• Set your first criterion just below baseline, ensuring early success.

• Increase expectations gradually.

This aligns beautifully with shaping principles and reduces frustration.

Reinforcer Selection for DRL

Always consider function. Matching the reinforcer to the maintaining variable strengthens outcomes.

Example:
If a student seeks help for attention, your DRL reinforcer should include high-quality attention when they meet criteria.
Strategic reinforcement here reduces the EO and decreases inappropriate help-seeking.

Ethical and Practical Considerations

DRL is powerful, but requires thoughtful planning.

Key reminders:

• Monitor for accidental extinction. DRL is NOT a reduction-to-zero procedure.

• Avoid reinforcing problem behavior. Unlike DRO, DRL ties reinforcement to the rate of a specific behavior—not its absence.

• Prioritize learner dignity. Asking for help is not a “bad” behavior. We are shaping independence, not compliance.

• Collaborate with teachers and families. DRL is socially valid when stakeholders see its academic and functional benefits.

Research supports the practicality of DRL in real-life settings. Austin & Bevan (2011), for example, demonstrated that teachers found interval DRL highly acceptable and easy to implement—an essential component of treatment fidelity.

DRL Video Example

The classic DRL demonstration video by Dr. Berg showcases two key ideas:

• Spaced-responding DRL is excellent for increasing time between behaviors (e.g., eating).

• Reinforcement delivery must be immediate and contingent to maintain behavior momentum.

Where DRL Fits in Your ABA Toolbox

DRL shines when:

• You want to build fluency without slowing a learner down too much.

• You want to protect socially important behaviors while reducing excess.

• You want an approach that balances structure with autonomy.

Used well, DRL fosters independence, confidence, and more natural performance across environments.

Differential Reinforcement of Higher Rates of Behavior (DRH)

While much of ABA focuses on reducing challenging behavior, DRH is a powerful and underused tool for increasing behaviors that are appropriate but not occurring often enough to contact natural reinforcement. When thoughtfully applied, DRH strengthens fluency, confidence, and participation across learning and social contexts.

What DRH Is Designed to Do

DRH procedures systematically reinforce incremental increases in the rate of a desired behavior. Unlike DRL—where the goal is to reduce frequency—DRH builds momentum by rewarding higher engagement, productivity, or participation.

You are shaping more of a good thing, not eliminating it.

When to Choose DRH

Use DRH when the learner already has the skill, but does not perform it frequently or fluently enough to experience natural reinforcement. Some common examples:

• Raising a hand in class (low participation despite knowing answers)

• Social initiations (learned skills used too infrequently to build relationships)

• Completing work tasks (slow work pace impacting independence or employment readiness)

• Functional communication (mands or requests occurring intermittently, leading to frustration)

If a skill is present but not reliably used, DRH can bridge the gap between learning and real-life performance.

Example of DRH in Practice

Imagine a learner who raises his hand just 2 times during a 45-minute math block, even though he consistently knows the correct answers.

A DRH plan might begin with:

• Initial criterion: 3 hand raises per class

• Reinforcer: Access to a preferred activity at the end of the block

• Progression: Increase the criterion over time (3 → 4 → 5…) as the learner succeeds

This approach builds fluency through momentum, not pressure. The learner experiences success quickly, which naturally increases motivation.

Why DRH Works

DRH strengthens behavior through:

• Immediate contact with reinforcement when higher rates occur

• Gradual shaping toward the desired rate

• Clear, predictable expectations

• Increased access to naturally occurring contingencies as fluent responding emerges

For many learners, DRH is one of the most dignifying differential reinforcement systems because it celebrates growth and reinforces active engagement rather than compliance.

Important Considerations for DRH

To ensure success, BCBAs® should:

• Set achievable initial criteria
  If you set the bar too high, the target behavior may contact accidental extinction.

• Use reinforcers aligned with the function
  If the learner raises their hand to access attention, pair reinforcement with attention-rich consequences.

• Monitor for signs of performance strain
  If the learner becomes fatigued or frustrated, you may need to lower criteria temporarily.

• Fade artificial reinforcement over time
  The end goal is for the behavior to contact natural reinforcement (e.g., peer engagement, academic success, teacher attention).

When DRH Is Not Appropriate

Avoid DRH when:

• The skill has not yet been taught (teach first; increase rate later)

• The behavior is effortful or aversive to the learner

• The increased rate could compromise quality (e.g., writing quickly but illegibly)

• The environment cannot support frequent reinforcement delivery

When in doubt, conduct a brief performance assessment to confirm the learner can exhibit higher rates before applying DRH.

Ethical Considerations When Using Differential Reinforcement in ABA

Differential reinforcement in ABA is undeniably powerful—but with that power comes a responsibility to use it thoughtfully, compassionately, and ethically. As BCBAs®, we’re not simply reducing behavior; we’re shaping repertoires that influence autonomy, dignity, and long-term quality of life. This section reframes ethical decision-making so you can apply differential reinforcement with clarity and confidence.

Important Considerations when Using Extinction

An important component of differential reinforcement is extinction. In Applied Behavior Analysis, withholding reinforcement for a previously reinforced behavior is called extinction. Often these behaviors have been unintentionally reinforced and extinction is implemented to reduce challenging behaviors. The challenging behavior should not receive reinforcement.

Although extinction is a common component of DR procedures, there are some risks associated with its use. Any time you use an extinction procedure, you will likely experience an extinction burst. This means the behavior will likely get worse before it gets better.

When dealing with intense or potentially dangerous behaviors, be cautious when choosing an extinction procedure. Make sure that you have a plan for keeping everyone safe if behaviors escalate to dangerous levels. Ensure you have the competence to implement this procedure or organize appropriate supervision.

Extinction may not be a practical intervention in all situations. If, after careful consideration, you determine that you can’t risk an extinction burst, consider using the matching law by offering a less potent reinforcer for the challenging behavior and a very strong reinforcer for the alternative behavior. For example, if attention maintains the challenging behavior, provide a quiet reprimand for inappropriate behavior and extended attention for alternative behaviors.

Borrero and Volmer (2002) found that behavior occurred at rates proportional to the rate of reinforcement for both problem and appropriate behavior during differential reinforcement procedures. This important research offers an alternative to the potential risky extinction procedures common when implementing DR.

Avoid Over-Prioritizing Compliance

One ethical risk of any differential reinforcement procedure is unintentionally drifting into a compliance-heavy framework. If every decision is based on adult convenience instead of learner needs, you can end up suppressing self-advocacy instead of shaping meaningful skills.

How to stay aligned with values-based ABA:

• Select target behaviors that genuinely improve the learner’s life—not just adult preference.

• Build choice into the learning process so learners practice autonomy.

• Reinforce communication and self-advocacy as often as you reinforce task participation.

This mindset—rooted in assent and dignity—keeps differential reinforcement aligned with compassionate ABA.

Watch for Inadvertent Punishment

A hidden pitfall of differential reinforcement is accidentally punishing behaviors you never intended to target. For example, using DRO may reduce a dangerous behavior while unintentionally increasing another maladaptive one—or worse, suppressing appropriate attempts at self-expression.

What you can do:

• Monitor closely for shifts in non-target behaviors.

• Reevaluate target and replacement behaviors if side effects appear.

• Adjust contingencies quickly when you see unintended behavioral suppression.

Thoughtful progress monitoring protects learners from collateral effects.

Generalization and Maintenance Must Be Built In Early

One of the most documented weaknesses of differential reinforcement is poor generalization when procedures are too contrived. Reinforcing “correct” behavior in a sterile teaching context does not guarantee the learner can reproduce that behavior when natural contingencies shift.

Prioritize generalization by:

• Choosing replacement behaviors that are functional across environments.

• Teaching in naturally varied contexts rather than only structured ones.

• Reinforcing behaviors with natural consequences whenever possible.

When DR procedures mirror real-life contingencies, skills stick.

Honor Individual and Cultural Differences

Reinforcers are not universal. What is motivating for one learner may be overwhelming, offensive, or culturally inappropriate for another. Likewise, replacing a behavior without considering cultural context can lead to interventions that clash with family values or norms.

Practical steps:

• Conduct culturally sensitive preference and reinforcer assessments.

• Collaborate with families to understand expectations and values.

• Modify reinforcers and target behaviors to reflect the learner’s community and identity.

When reinforcement feels relevant and respectful, learners thrive.

Prevent Over-Reliance on External Reinforcement

Differential reinforcement—especially when paired with tangible reinforcers—can create an unintended dependence. If learners behave appropriately only when they expect a reward, independence suffers.

Your long-term goal should always be:

• Fading tangibles strategically.

• Replacing them with natural reinforcers (e.g., social success, accomplishment, autonomy).

• Teaching self-monitoring and self-reinforcement skills.

This shift strengthens intrinsic motivation and supports lifelong independence.

Respect Natural Contingencies, Don’t Replace Them

Over-engineering reinforcement can unintentionally override the natural consequences that normally shape behavior. When contingencies become too artificial, learners may fail to recognize how their actions influence the world outside of a therapy session.

Your strategy:

• Use natural reinforcers whenever possible.

• Intervene minimally unless learner safety or autonomy requires otherwise.

• Choose DR procedures that preserve the natural flow of interactions.

Think of DR as scaffolding—not as a replacement for real-life learning.

Avoid Coercive Reinforcement Practices

Differential reinforcement can be misused when reinforcers are withheld in a way that pressures a learner into compliance. The ethical focus must always be on supporting—not controlling—behavior change.

You can prevent coercion by:

• Ensuring assent and monitoring for withdrawal.

• Keeping reinforcement contingencies transparent and consistent.

• Following the learner’s cues and adapting when they signal distress.

Ethical reinforcement honors the learner’s right to participate willingly.

Define Target Behaviors Clearly to Prevent Reinforcing Harmful Responses

Poorly defined target behaviors create unnecessary risk. If the replacement behavior doesn’t meet the learner’s needs or if reinforcement is delivered for a harmful alternative, outcomes suffer.

Safeguards include:

• Writing operational definitions that eliminate ambiguity.

• Ensuring replacement behaviors address the behavior’s function.

• Monitoring closely for any behavior that escalates due to the DR procedure.

Clarity protects learners and elevates the integrity of your programming.

Conclusion

Differential reinforcement remains one of the most powerful, flexible, and ethically grounded tools in ABA—but only when we use it with intention, nuance, and a deep respect for the learner’s experience. Whether you're shaping replacement behaviors through DRA or DRI, stabilizing dangerous behaviors with DRO, fine-tuning rates using DRL or DRH, or integrating the matching law to avoid unnecessary extinction, your decisions matter. They shape how learners access autonomy, safety, dignity, and meaningful long-term change.

As BCBAs®, our responsibility isn’t simply to reduce “problem behavior.” It’s to build repertoires that expand a learner’s world—skills that communicate needs, strengthen independence, and open new opportunities for participation and joy. Differential reinforcement gives us a framework to do exactly that, provided we anchor our choices in function, data, stakeholder collaboration, and ethical clarity.

Use these DR procedures not as standalone tactics, but as part of a thoughtful, individualized intervention package that elevates the learner’s voice and supports their growth across real environments. When implemented with precision and compassion, differential reinforcement doesn't just change behavior—it changes lives.

Ready to go deeper? Explore our related guides on functional assessments, reinforcer selection, and the matching law to refine your practice even further. Together, we can raise the standard for skillful, humane, and evidence-driven ABA.

References

Athens, E. S., & Vollmer, T. R. (2010). An investigation of differential reinforcement of alternative behavior without extinction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(4), 569-589.

Austin, J. L., & Bevan, D. (2011). Using differential reinforcement of low rates to reduce children's requests for teacher attention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(3), 451-461.

Borrero, J. C., & Vollmer, T. R. (2002). An application of the matching law to severe problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35(1), 13-27.

Carr, E. G., et al. (1990). Positive approaches to the treatment of severe behavior problems in persons with developmental disabilities: A review and analysis of reinforcement and stimulus-based procedures. monograph no. 4., 1-44. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/62974256?accountid=166077

Chowdhury, M., & Benson, B. A. (2011). Use of differential reinforcement to reduce behavior problems in adults with intellectual disabilities: A methodological review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32(2), 383-394.

Daly, P. M., & Ranalli, P. (2003). Using countoons to teach self-monitoring skills. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(5), 30-35. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/201148804?accountid=166077

Dille, L. (2009). A comparison of two curricular models of instruction to increase teacher repertoires for instructing students with autism (Order No. 3367979). Available from Education Collection. (304865342). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/304865342?accountid=166077

Flynn, S. D., & Lo, Y. (2016). Teacher implementation of trial-based functional analysis and differential reinforcement of alternative behavior for students with challenging behavior. Journal of Behavioral Education, 25(1), 1-31. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10864-015-9231-2

Karsten, A. M., & Carr, J. E. (2009). The effects of differential reinforcement of unprompted responding on the skill acquisition of children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(2), 327-334.

Legray, M. W., Dufrene, B. A., Mercer, S., Olmi, D. J., & Sterling, H. (2013). Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior in center-based classrooms: Evaluation of pre-teaching the alternative behavior. Journal of Behavioral Education, 22(2), 85-102. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10864-013-9170-8

Myerson, J., & Hale, S. (1984). Practical implications of the matching law. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17(3), 367-380.

Petscher, E. S., & Bailey, J. S. (2008). Comparing main and collateral effects of extinction and differential reinforcement of alternative behavior. Behavior Modification, 32(4), 468-488.

Repp, A. C., Barton, L. E., & Brulle, A. R. (1983). A comparison of two procedures for programming the differential reinforcement of other behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16(4), 435-445.

Trosclair‐Lasserre, N. M., Lerman, D. C., Call, N. A., Addison, L. R., & Kodak, T. (2008). Reinforcement magnitude: An evaluation of preference and reinforcer efficacy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41(2), 203-220.

Vollmer, T. R., Iwata, B. A., Zarcone, J. R., Smith, R. G., & Mazaleski, J. L. (1993). 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, 26(1), 9-21.

Ward‐Horner, J. C., Pittenger, A., Pace, G., & Fienup, D. M. (2014). Effects of reinforcer magnitude and distribution on preference for work schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47(3), 623-627.

Waters, M. B., Lerman, D. C., & Hovanetz, A. N. (2009). Separate and combined effects of visual schedules and extinction plus differential reinforcement on problem behavior occasioned by transitions. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 42(2), 309-313.

Wong, C., Odom, S. L., Hume, K. A., Cox, A. W., Fettig, A., Kucharczyk, S., … & Schultz, T. R. (2015). Evidence-based practices for children, youth, and young adults with autism spectrum disorder: A comprehensive review. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 45(7), 1951-1966.