Differential Reinforcement Of Other Behavior Schedule Research Articles

Resurgence of ethanol seeking following voluntary abstinence produced by nondrug differential reinforcement of other behavior.

Resurgence refers to the relapse of a target behavior following the worsening of a source of alternative reinforcement that was made available during response elimination. Most laboratory analyses of resurgence have used a combination of extinction and alternative reinforcement to reduce target behavior. In contingency-management treatments for alcohol use disorder, however, alcohol use is not placed on extinction. Instead, participants voluntarily abstain from alcohol use to access nondrug alternative reinforcers. Inasmuch, additional laboratory research on resurgence following voluntary abstinence is warranted. The present experiment evaluated resurgence of rats' ethanol seeking following voluntary abstinence produced by differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO). Lever pressing produced ethanol reinforcers during baseline phases. During DRO phases, lever pressing continued to produce ethanol and food reinforcers were delivered according to resetting DRO schedules. Ethanol and food reinforcers were suspended during resurgence test phases to evaluate resurgence following voluntary abstinence. Lever pressing was elevated during baseline phases and occurred at near-zero rates during DRO phases. During the resurgence test phases, lever pressing increased, despite that it no longer produced ethanol. The procedure introduced here may help researchers better understand the variables that affect voluntary abstinence from ethanol seeking and resurgence following voluntary abstinence.

Examining the Effectiveness of a Variable Momentary Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior Procedure on Reduction and Maintenance of Problem Behavior

To evaluate the effectiveness of variable-momentary differential reinforcement of other behavior (VM DRO) schedules in the reduction and maintenance of problem behavior. Specifically, will VM DRO be effective in reducing severe problem behavior for two children diagnosed with developmental disorders (DD)? Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) has been demonstrated to be effective in reducing severe problem behavior for decades. However, recent manipulations to the schedule of delivery have led to advancements in DRO. Indicatively, VM DRO has been an effective intervention for automatically reinforced as well as social-positive maintained behavior for individuals with developmental disabilities. There is a dearth of research on variable- and fixed-momentary DRO schedules for individuals with DD; therefore, more examinations may be necessary. Two case studies of individuals who had been diagnosed with developmental disabilities were reviewed. Functional analyses were conducted and indicated that problem behavior for both participants was maintained by social-positive reinforcement. VM DRO was effective at reducing one participant’s problem behavior. Fixed interval differential reinforcement of other behavior (FI DRO) was effective at reducing the other participant’s problem behavior. Findings suggest that VM DRO may not be effective at reducing problem behavior for all individuals and that outcomes may be idiosyncratic.

Changes in the elimination and resurgence of alcohol-maintained behavior in rats and the effects of naltrexone.

Resurgence may be a mechanism of relapse in alcohol use disorder patients upon discharge from treatment as part of an abuse-treatment-relapse cycle. Adjunctive pharmacotherapies may be a means to facilitate behavioral treatments and block resurgence. Experiments were conducted using a model of alcohol self-administration to assess the repeatability of the elimination and resurgence of alcohol-maintained behavior and the effects of naltrexone. Experiments had three phases. In Phase 1, behavior was maintained by oral alcohol under a fixed-ratio schedule. In Phase 2, behavior was extinguished via condensed milk delivery under a differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior (DRO) schedule. In Phase 3, the DRO schedule was eliminated. In Experiment 1, this 3-phase cycle was replicated 4 times. Across replications, response rates and dose of alcohol consumed did not differ in Phase 1, alcohol-maintained behavior was eliminated more rapidly in Phase 2, and the resurgence effect was generally stable in Phase 3. In Experiment 2, naltrexone was administered in Phase 2, Phase 3, or both Phases 2 and 3, to separate groups of rats. Naltrexone facilitated the elimination of alcohol-maintained behavior in Phase 2 and, the resurgence of alcohol-maintained behavior was reduced only for those rats that received naltrexone in both phases. Together, these experiments demonstrate that the resurgence of alcohol-maintained behavior is replicable within-subjects and, further, resurgence of alcohol-maintained behavior may be a useful model to evaluate pharmacological interventions to facilitate behavioral treatments and reduce the likelihood of relapse. Results with naltrexone support the use of medication-assisted therapy approaches to reduce relapse risk in patients. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

The role of adventitious reinforcement during differential reinforcement of other behavior: A systematic replication

Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) is commonly used to decrease problem behavior by presenting reinforcers contingent upon the absence of a target response. Although it is well demonstrated that DROs decrease response rates, the processes producing these decreases are not well understood. The present study systematically replicated previous research assessing whether adventitious reinforcement of alternative behavior contributes to the effectiveness of DRO. We presented university students with two options on a computer and reinforced target responding on a variable-ratio schedule. Next, we compared decreases in target-response rates and any increases in alternative responding during DRO schedules versus yoked variable-time schedules or extinction probes. DRO schedules resulted in the lowest target-response rate and highest alternative-response rate. These findings generally provide some support for the adventitious reinforcement of "other" behavior.

To peck or not peck: Which do pigeons prefer?

Animals are expected to minimize time and effort to reinforcement. Thus, not pecking should be preferred over pecking. However, even if time is held constant, pigeons often peck when it is allowed but not required (e.g., fixed time schedules), but with such schedules pecking may be adventitiously reinforced. In the present experiment, to better compare a schedule of reinforcement that requires pecking with one that requires the absence of pecking, we compared a modified fixed-interval (FI) schedule in which reinforcement follows the first peck after the interval has elapsed and a differential-reinforcement-of-other behavior (DRO) schedule, which requires pigeons to abstain from pecking for a similar interval. The delay to reinforcement was matched on a trial-by-trial basis by yoking the duration of the FI to match the DRO schedule that preceded it. Of 12 pigeons, six preferred the DRO schedule over the FI schedule and six did not show a schedule preference. Those that were indifferent between the schedules apparently had a stronger spatial preference than their schedule preference. Individual differences in the preference of the pigeons may have been related to their behavior during the DRO schedule.

Comparing fixed-amount and progressive-amount DRO Schedules for tic suppression in youth with chronic tic disorders.

Chronic tic disorders (CTDs) involve motor and/or vocal tics that often cause substantial distress and impairment. Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) schedules of reinforcement produce robust, but incomplete, reductions in tic frequency in youth with CTDs; however, a more robust reduction may be needed to affect durable clinical change. Standard, fixed-amount DRO schedules have not commonly yielded such reductions, so we evaluated a novel, progressive-amount DRO schedule, based on its ability to facilitate sustained abstinence from functionally similar behaviors. Five youth with CTDs were exposed to periods of baseline, fixed-amount DRO (DRO-F), and progressive-amount DRO (DRO-P). Both DRO schedules produced decreases in tic rate and increases in intertic interval duration, but no systematic differences were seen between the two schedules on any dimension of tic occurrence. The DRO-F schedule was generally preferred to the DRO-P schedule. Possible procedural improvements and other future directions are discussed.

Reducing pawing in horses using positive reinforcement.

Aversive control is a common method to reduce undesirable behavior in horses. However, it often results in unintended negative side effects, including potential abuse of the animal. Procedures based on positive reinforcement, such as differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO), may reduce undesirable behaviors with fewer negative consequences. The current study used DRO schedules to reduce pawing using a multiple baseline design across 3 horses. Results indicated that DRO schedules were effective at reducing pawing. However, individual differences in sensitivity to DRO and reinforcer efficacy may be important considerations.

The Effects of Using a Conditioned Stimulus to Cue DRO Schedules

A reversal design was used to examine the effects of a differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) procedure and the presence of a stimulus (i.e., a bracelet), conditioned via discrimination training, on reducing socially maintained non‐contextual vocalizations in an adolescent girl with autism. Initially, a functional analysis determined that non‐contextual vocalizations were maintained by social attention. Then, discrimination training was used to establish the presence of the bracelet as a discriminative stimulus for the absence of vocalizations. Specifically, when the bracelet was on, non‐contextual vocalizations were interrupted, and edible reinforcement was provided for the absence of vocalizations. When the bracelet was off, vocalizations were not interrupted and the teacher provided social attention to the participant (i.e., reciprocated conversation with the participant about the topic). During intervention, a DRO procedure was used. The participant was presented with the bracelet, a timer set for a specified interval, and the instruction to work quietly. If vocalizations did not occur for the entire duration of the interval, the bracelet was removed and the learner was given the opportunity to engage in vocalizations. The DRO interval was systematically increased throughout the intervention. Results are discussed in terms of discrimination training as an effective addition to differential reinforcement procedure. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Reduction of biting and chewing of horses using differential reinforcement of other behavior

Biting and chewing by horses on crossties can result in injury to the handler and damage to equipment. Operant-conditioning techniques have been used to train horses and could be used to reduce or eliminate undesirable biting and chewing. Presently, a differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior (DRO) schedule, in the context of a reversal design, was effective in reducing biting and chewing in two horses. In DRO schedules, a reinforcer is delivered contingent on the absence of a target behavior for a specified interval. Positive-reinforcement procedures offer an alternative to aversive-control techniques typically used in equine training and may provide for better equine welfare and horse-human interaction.

Using DRO, behavioral momentum, and self-regulation to reduce scripting by an adolescent with autism.

Review of the Literature Self -Stimulatory Behavior Considerable impairments in both social and communicative behavior affect most individuals with autism (Rutter & Schopler, 1978). For example, research indicates that during vocal exchanges and in social settings, these individuals often produce forms of verbal behavior that significantly differ from the speech produced by individuals without autism (Fine, Bartolucci, & Szatmari, 1994). This verbal behavior is often categorized as self-stimulatory or stereotyped behavior, and it consists of recurring physical movements or vocalizations that serve no obvious function in the external environment (Harris & Wolchik, 1979). When high rates of delayed echolalia (Fine et al.), also known as scripting, occur in conjunction with low rates of appropriate conversational skills, the social relational opportunities for persons with autism may be greatly reduced (Ross, 2002). Additionally, self-stimulation may interfere with learning or performance (Koegel and Covert, 1972). Since self-stimulation can be potentially harmful to the student as a learner and to the individual as a peer, a number of studies have investigated procedures that could decrease this behavior. Laws, Brown, Epstein, and Hocking (1971) decreased self-stimulatory behavior by directing a teacher to remove attention when his students self-stimulated and to reinforce suitable behavior when they attended. Azrin, Kaplan, and Foxx (1973) reduced self-stimulation in nine individuals with mental retardation by instructing them on the suitable use of vocational and recreational materials. The present study adds to this literature by demonstrating a decrease in the production of self-stimulatory behavior of vocal scripting by an adolescent male with autism, obsessive compulsive disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder through the use of differential reinforcement, self-regulation and behavioral momentum. Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior (DRO) All forms of differential reinforcement entail reinforcing one response and withholding reinforcement for another response class (Cooper, Heron, Heward, 2007, p. 470). One of the most frequently used types of differential reinforcement is the differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) (Wolery, Bailey, & Sugai, 1988). DRO schedules reverse a contingency by delivering reinforcers based on the absence of a target behavior (Baer, Peterson, & Sherman, 1967). This type of reinforcement delivery is sometimes referred to as omission training since delivery of the reinforcer is contingent upon the omission of the target behavior (Weiher & Harman, 1975). DRO is a useful behavior-reduction procedure for several reasons. First, it highlights the use of positive reinforcement while avoiding the use of aversive stimuli. As a result, many adverse side effects may be avoided. Secondly, target behaviors tend to reduce rather quickly under conditions of DRO, especially if a specific replacement behavior is reinforced (Wolery, Bailey & Sugai, 1998). Lastly, DRO has been shown to be useful in decreasing or eliminating a variety of behavioral excesses, physical aggression and tantrums (Allen, Gottselig, & Boylan, 1982). Behavioral Momentum Generally speaking behavioral momentum involves the use of a series of high-probability requests to increase compliance with lower-probability, instructor-issued requests. Over time, in order to increase generalization and maintenance, fading procedures are implemented such that the interval of time between high probability requests to low probability requests is increased and the ratio of high probability requests to low probability requests is decreased (Ray, Skinner & Watson, 1999). Previous research has demonstrated the benefits of behavioral momentum for increasing compliance with low-probability requests across commands, demands, or requests (Ray, Skinner & Watson, 1999). …

Effects of adjusting DRO schedules on the reduction of stereotypic vocalizations in children with autism

AbstractThe reduction of stereotypic behavior is important for individuals with developmental disabilities because it may interfere with learning new skills. A common procedure used to reduce stereotypic behavior is differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO). A DRO schedule is a procedure in which reinforcement is delivered given the absence of a target response for a period of time. Although DRO schedules have been shown to be effective in reducing a variety of stereotypic behavior, empirical studies have not yet determined the most effective way to thin the reinforcement schedule. The current study examined the extent to which the relationship between the inter‐response time (IRT) and the DRO requirement affects the reduction of stereotypic behavior. Results of the current study showed the DRO requirement that was set to the 25th percentile of the IRT distribution was more effective in reducing stereotypic behavior when compared with a DRO requirement set to the 95th percentile of the IRT distribution. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Differential resurgence and response elimination

Resurgence refers to the transient recovery of previously reinforced, but presently not reinforced, responding when more recently reinforced responding is extinguished. The primary purpose of our research was to determine how differential resurgence results from the procedures used to eliminate that responding. There were three conditions in each of five experiments. In Condition 1, key pecking by pigeons was maintained under a two-component multiple variable-interval (VI) 30-s VI 30-s schedule. In Condition 2, this pecking was eliminated in different ways across components. In Condition 3, extinction was in effect for all responses, and resurgence of key pecking was compared across components. These three conditions were repeated for most pigeons, and the procedures used to eliminate responding in Condition 2 varied across experiments. In Experiment 1, there was greater resurgence, and an earlier onset of it, after a differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior (DRO) schedule than after a VI schedule was correlated with pecking an alternative key. Experiments 2 and 3 showed that the differential resurgence in Experiment 1 probably was not due to conditional stimulus control or the periodicity of food delivery, respectively. In Experiment 4, there was no systematic difference in resurgence after either a DRO schedule or a VI schedule correlated with treadle pressing. In Experiment 5, there was greater resurgence, and/or an earlier onset of it, after a VI schedule correlated with treadle pressing than after a VI schedule correlated with pecking an alternative key. Taken together, the results showed that the reinforcement of an alternative key-peck response was the most effective means of reducing subsequent key-peck resurgence. The relation of these results to an understanding of resurgence is discussed.

Preference for a stimulus that follows a relatively aversive event: contrast or delay reduction?

Several types of contrast effects have been identified including incentive contrast, anticipatory contrast, and behavioral contrast. Clement, Feltus, Kaiser, and Zentall (2000) proposed a type of contrast that appears to be different from these others and called it within-trial contrast. In this form of contrast the relative value of a reinforcer depends on the events that occur immediately prior to the reinforcer. Reinforcers that follow relatively aversive events are preferred over those that follow less aversive events. In many cases the delay reduction hypothesis proposed by Fantino (1969) also can account for such effects. The current experiments provide a direct test of the delay reduction and contrast hypotheses by manipulating the schedule of reinforcement while holding trial duration constant. In Experiment 1, preference for fixed-interval (FI) versus differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior (DRO) schedules of reinforcement was assessed. Some pigeons preferred one schedule over the other while others demonstrated a position (side) preference. Thus, no systematic preference was found. In Experiment 2, a simultaneous color discrimination followed the FI or DRO schedule, and following training, preference was assessed by presenting the two positive stimuli simultaneously. Consistent with the contrast hypothesis, pigeons showed a significant preference for the positive stimulus that in training had followed their less preferred schedule.

Differential reinforcement of other behavior applied classwide in a child care setting.

Abstract This study investigated the effectiveness of implementing Differential Reinforcement of Other behavior (DRO) at the classwide level to decrease the disruptive behavior of seven typically developing preschool-aged children in a child care setting. After baseline data were collected, a whole interval DRO reinforcement schedule using edible rewards was implemented for four weeks. Disruptive behavior decreased after the intervention was implemented. This report adds to the existing research literature supporting the use of DRO in classroom settings (e.g., Conyers et al., 2003; Repp, Barton, & Brulle, 1983) and extends the literature on the use of DRO with typically developing preschoolers. Limitations of this study and future research recommended in this area are discussed. Keywords: preschool age, differential reinforcement (DR), differential reinforcement of behavior (DRO), disruptive behavior, classwide, day care, child care, and community based ********** Differential reinforcement of behavior (DRO) is a procedure in which reinforcement is delivered dependent on the absence of the target behavior (Conyers, Miltenberger, Romaniuk, Kopp, & Himle, 2003). To implement this technique, data are collected on the occurrence of the target behavior and the average duration between behaviors is determined (i.e., the inter-response interval). This information drives the reinforcement schedule that is delivered if the target behavior does not occur. For example, if data gathered during baseline suggest that the target behavior occurs once every minute, reinforcement will be delivered at the end of a minute if the target behavior has not been exhibited. Once behavioral control has been established, the interval required for delivery of the reinforcement is progressively increased (de Zubicaray & Clair, 1998). DRO has proven effective in eliminating a wide variety of problem behaviors with different populations, and it is a procedure that does not require extensive training to implement (Homer & Peterson, 1980). Homer and Peterson (1980) reported that DRO schedules of reinforcement produce rapid inhibition of response in applied settings and that no undesirable side effects of the intervention had been reported in the literature. The authors predicted any possible side effects to be positive in nature due to the positive reinforcement aspect of the intervention (Homer & Peterson, 1980). By definition, DRO must be paired with some type of reinforcement of non-targeted behaviors. Past research has demonstrated that DRO paired with edible reinforcement has reduced inappropriate behaviors in children (e.g., Repp, Dietz, & Dietz, 1976). Specifically, Repp et al. (1976) reported success in reducing levels of inappropriate responding in a classroom using a DRO schedule of reinforcement paired with a token economy. The students exchanged their tokens for games, activities, and refreshments. The DRO intervention has been implemented in two ways: whole interval DRO (wDRO) and momentary DRO (mDRO). The wDRO procedure involves administering the reinforcer if behavior than the target behavior (hereafter other behavior) is exhibited for the entire interval. In contrast, the mDRO procedure involves administering the reinforcer if the behavior is exhibited at the time of a prompt (e.g., the sound of a timer). One study found that wDRO decreased inappropriate behavior more than mDRO (Repp, Barton, & Brulle, 1983). Repp et al. (1983) conducted two studies to compare the effectiveness of whole interval DRO and momentary DRO. The results indicated that although wDRO was more effective than momentary, the value of mDRO cannot be ignored. In fact, the mDRO schedule reduced inappropriate behavior (Repp et al., 1983). The authors noted the difficulty of implementing wDRO accurately due to the constant attention required by the observer. …

Reducing stereotypic behavior through discrimination training, differential reinforcement of other behavior, and self‐monitoring

The effect of a treatment package designed to reduce stereotypic body rocking was examined in a child diagnosed with autism. After baseline, the participant was taught to discriminate between inappropriate (e.g. sitting in a chair and rocking) and appropriate (e.g. sitting in a chair without rocking) behavior. During intervention, both a therapist and the participant himself monitored the occurrence of rocking behavior. A non-resetting 5 min differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) schedule was also introduced. A multiple baseline across behaviors (sitting and standing) design was used to evaluate the effects of the intervention package. The results indicated that the intervention was effective in eliminating body rocking. In addition, the DRO schedule was successfully increased to 20 min for sitting and 17 min for standing and the treatment was successfully introduced at the child's school. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Reducing stereotypic behavior through discrimination training, differential reinforcement of other behavior, and self‐monitoring

AbstractThe effect of a treatment package designed to reduce stereotypic body rocking was examined in a child diagnosed with autism. After baseline, the participant was taught to discriminate between inappropriate (e.g. sitting in a chair and rocking) and appropriate (e.g. sitting in a chair without rocking) behavior. During intervention, both a therapist and the participant himself monitored the occurrence of rocking behavior. A non‐resetting 5 min differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) schedule was also introduced. A multiple baseline across behaviors (sitting and standing) design was used to evaluate the effects of the intervention package. The results indicated that the intervention was effective in eliminating body rocking. In addition, the DRO schedule was successfully increased to 20 min for sitting and 17 min for standing and the treatment was successfully introduced at the child's school. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Applying a DRO schedule and compliance training to reduce aggressive and self-injurious behavior in an autistic man: A case report

An autistic man who displayed aggressive, self-injurious, and destructive behavior in a psychiatric hospital ward despite administration of psychotropic medications and repeated application of physical restraints was treated with a differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) schedule and compliance training. These were employed in conjunction with ongoing medical interventions. After introduction of behavioral procedures, the frequency of applying restraints for violent behavior declined from an average of more than once per day to less than once per month. Data taken while the program was maintained over a 1-year period showed that violent behavior remained at a very low level.

Differential- Reinforcement-of-Other-Behavior Schedules

General aspects of differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior (DRO) schedules are discussed, and nineteen studies that involved therapeutic applications of such schedules are evaluated along several dimensions. The majority of studies employed retarded children as subjects and successfully reduced some form of aggressive, disruptive, or self-injurious behavior. Tokens and food were the consequences most commonly delivered; these and other stimuli were presented contingent on periods of nonresponding that ranged at maximum across studies from five seconds to eight hours. Nearly half of the rated studies used DRO in conjunction with another response-suppressing operation, while an equal number compared two or more response-deceleration procedures. Only two studies reported data on behaviors other than those actually consequated under the DRO. Overall, the data evaluated indicate that DRO schedules can be a viable technique for reducing undesired behaviors, although the range of conditions under which these schedules have been employed is rather limited, and some confusion apparently exists concerning their operational characteristics.

Differential reinforcement of other behavior: A preferred response elimination procedure

Ethical and legal concerns which have been raised regarding many types of response elimination techniques are discussed, and the increased use of a schedule employing positive reinforcement to eliminate behavior is proposed. The differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) schedule is compared with other response elimination techniques. It is concluded that DRO schedules compare favorably with other techniques in speed and completeness of response elimination. In addition, DRO schedules may be superior to other techniques in durability and generalization of response reduction and in the type of side effects produced. Increased examination and use of DRO schedules is urged.