Differential reinforcement as treatment for behavior disorders: Procedural and functional variations
Abstract
For many years, differential reinforcement has been a prevalent and preferred treatment procedure for the reduction of behavior disorders. This paper reviews the procedural variations of differential reinforcement and discusses their functional properties. It is proposed that such procedures are more likely to be successful if behavioral function is a primary consideration in prescribing treatments; furthermore, limited success noted in previous research may be due to the arbitrary relationship that often exists between reinforcers and target behaviors when behavioral function is unknown. Despite the promise of a function-based approach to differential reinforcement, several current limitations exist in the identification and manipulation of relevant variables. Thus, further research is required to elucidate the relationship between aberrant behaviors and the variables responsible for maintaining them; otherwise, successful treatment cannot be expected. Several areas for future research are discussed conceptually as extensions of current and past experimentation.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The paper characterizes procedures that reinforce alternative responses to thoughts as a differential reinforcement of alternative responses (DRA) process.
“Either way, this could be characterized as a Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Responses (DRA) procedure, in which the usual response is extinguished in favor of new, alternative ones that are reinforced (cf.Vollmer & Iwata, 1992).”
From A Process-Based Analysis of Cognitive Defusion in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (2023) · cites this paper as Vollmer & Iwata, 1992
This process can be characterized as a Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Responses (DRA) procedure, in which the usual response is extinguished in favor of reinforced alternatives.
“Either way, this could be characterized as a Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Responses (DRA) procedure, in which the usual response is extinguished in favor of new, alternative ones that are reinforced (cf.Vollmer & Iwata, 1992).”
From A Process-Based Analysis of Cognitive Defusion in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (2023) · cites this paper as Vollmer & Iwata, 1992
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 81 · Cited by 198
- Authors
- Vollmer, T. R., & Iwata, B. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Florida (US)
- Corresponding author
- Vollmer, Timothy R.
- Iwata, Brian A.
- Venue
- Research in Developmental Disabilities
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1992-07
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 393-417
- ISSN
- 0891-4222 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1984252587
- Cited by
- 198
- References
- 81
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 4.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Research in Developmental Disabilities (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues
- Keywords
- differential reinforcement, behavior disorders, functional analysis, behavioral functioning, therapeutic procedures, behavior maintenance, developmental disabilities
- MeSH terms
- Behavior Therapy, Humans, Intellectual Disability, Motivation, Reinforcement Schedule
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review