JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2016, 49, 15 NUMBER 4 (WINTER)

RECENT ADVANCES IN APPLIED RESEARCH ON DRO PROCEDURES

JOSHUA JESSEL
CHILD STUDY CENTER

AND

EINAR T. INGVARSSON
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS AND CHILD STUDY CENTER

Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) has been applied to reduce problem behav-
ior in various forms across different populations. We review DRO research from the last 5 years,
with a focus on studies that enhance our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of DRO.
We also discuss implications for practitioners and applied researchers.
Key words: behavioral processes, differential reinforcement of other behavior, problem
behavior

Differential reinforcement of other behavior
(DRO) is a procedural arrangement in which
reinforcement is scheduled following an interval
during which a specied response does not
occur (Catania, 2013). DRO has been used to
reduce many kinds of undesirable behavior
with a variety of populations, including self-
injurious behavior by individuals with intellec-
tual disabilities (Kahng, Iwata, & Lewin, 2002)
and disruptive classroom behavior of typically
developing children (e.g., Austin, Groves,
Reynish, & Francis, 2015). The widespread
utility of DRO has resulted in the development
of multiple modications to the original proce-
dures and translational research into the behav-
ioral mechanisms that are responsible for its
effectiveness. We will describe recent develop-
ments in research on DRO and discuss poten-
tial implications for researchers and
practitioners. The articles we review were
selected based on their contributions to under-
standing novel variations in DRO that have
This research was supported in part by a grant from
Masonic Home and School of Texas.
Address correspondence to Joshua Jessel, Child Study
Center, 1300 W. Lancaster Ave., Fort Worth, Texas
76102 (e-mail: jjessel@cscfw.org).
doi: 10.1002/jaba.323
been studied in the past 5 years. These varia-
tions include the (a) conceptualization of pro-
cesses, (b) use of functional or arbitrary
reinforcers, (c) use of different signals, and
(d) differences in momentary schedules.
Original Concepts
In the original laboratory demonstration, the
DRO interval was reset after each instance of
the target response (Reynolds, 1961). In one of
the rst applications to socially signicant beha-
viors, Repp and Deitz (1974) used a resetting
DRO to decrease the aggression of three indivi-
duals who had been diagnosed with intellectual
disabilities. Since then, modications have been
made to the interval duration (i.e., xed
vs. variable), the resetting feature (i.e., resetting
vs. nonresetting), and response requirement
(i.e., whole interval vs. momentary; see also
Vollmer & Iwata, 1992).
At least four processes have been implicated
as potential explanations for the effects of
DRO arrangements (Poling & Ryan, 1982).
First, the presentation of the reinforcer could
function as an abolishing operation (i.e., satia-
tion) and temporarily reduce or eliminate target
responding. Second, the disruption of the
responsereinforcer contingency could result in

1
2 JOSHUA JESSEL and EINAR T. INGVARSSON
extinction. Third, delaying access to reinfor-
cers could suppress target responding through
punishment. Fourth, other behavior could be
strengthened by adventitious reinforcement,
resulting in displacement of the target
behavior.
It is likely that each of these four processes
could be operating on different occasions, or
multiple processes could operate at the same
time, depending on the DRO arrangement and
the reinforcer used. For example, at dense
DRO intervals, satiation might be the operat-
ing mechanism. During lean DRO intervals in
which the target response is less likely to con-
tact the reinforcer, extinction might be the
operative process (cf. Wallace, Iwata, Hanley,
Thompson, & Roscoe, 2012). When the DRO
intervals are similar to baseline interresponse
times, the participants behavior is likely to
contact reinforcer delay frequently, resulting in
negative punishment (Lattal, 2013). It is espe-
cially important, during DRO schedule thin-
ning, to consider these different processes,
because the rate at which reinforcement is
scheduled could have a corresponding effect on
the target behavior (Rozenblat, Brown, Brown,
Reeve, & Reeve, 2009).
Variations in Processes
To date, little research has examined
whether DRO produces reinforcement of
other behavior, even though this is implied by
the name of the procedure. In a translational
study with college students (Jessel, Borrero, &
Becraft, 2015), a second response, simulating
other behavior, was available concurrently with
a target response that produced points on a
variable-ratio (VR) schedule. There was never
any programmed reinforcement contingent on
the second response. DRO, extinction, and
xed-time probes were then introduced in a
mixed-schedule arrangement. DRO resulted in
the increase and maintenance of the second
response, whereas extinction and xed-time
probes did not. In addition, Jessel et al. found
greater reductions in the target response dur-
ing DRO than during extinction probes.
Thus, increases in other behavior appeared to
displace the target response. Without a meas-
ure of other behavior, the reduction in target
responding during DRO might have been
attributed to the response-suppressing effects
of punishment.
When using DRO procedures, practitioners
should consider measuring behavior other than
the target behavior. For example, Roane and
DeRosa (2014) found that the combined treat-
ment of DRO and response blocking reduced
the elopement of a 7-year-old boy with autism
but resulted in the emergence of other problem
behavior (i.e., dropping). However, this prob-
lem behavior was most likely functionally
dissimilar to the alternative response measured
by Jessel et al. (2015), because dropping was
not reduced after it was included in the DRO
contingency (a tertiary reinforcement compo-
nent was needed). In future research, it may
be appropriate to distinguish between other
behavior that occurs due to adventitious rein-
forcement and behavior that might be a
schedule-induced side effect of DRO (Cowdery,
Iwata, & Pace, 1990).
Variations in Reinforcers
DRO arrangements may function differently
depending on the relation of the reinforcer to
the target response. Austin et al. (2015) con-
ducted functional analyses with three test con-
ditions (teacher attention, peer attention,
escape from academic demands) for the inap-
propriate call-outs of three typically developing
boys. Two to three different DRO arrange-
ments were used with each participant, com-
paring the functionally matched reinforcers
from each test condition. The DRO was more
effective when the reinforcer matched that of
the test condition with the highest rates of call-
outs, suggesting that DRO is more effective
 ADVANCES IN DRO PROCEDURES
when the reinforcers are identied through
functional analysis.
DRO arrangements are often used when rein-
forcers for problem behavior either cannot be
controlled (e.g., automatic reinforcement) or
cannot be identied due to practical constraints
(e.g., classroom settings with multiple children).
Thus, further comparisons could be made
between DRO arrangements that replace other
sources of reinforcement (i.e., functional) and
those that compete with other sources of rein-
forcement (i.e., arbitrary). The relevant behav-
ioral processes are likely to be different when the
reinforcer is unrelated to the target problem
behavior. For example, extinction as an opera-
tive process applies when functional reinforcers
are used during DRO. However, punishment
might apply even if other reinforcers are used.
In the case of tic suppression, an arbitrary
reinforcer (e.g., monetary rewards) is pro-
grammed in a DRO arrangement to compete
with automatic negative reinforcement pre-
sumed to maintain tics (Specht et al., 2013).
For example, Capriotti, Brandt, Ricketts, Espil,
and Woods (2012) provided tokens exchangea-
ble for nickels on a 5-s DRO schedule for the
absence of tics with four children with tic dis-
orders. A reduction in tics was observed in
three participants, and the level of suppression
was comparable to a response-cost treatment,
which was also evaluated. Response cost is a
negative punishment procedure that involves
contingent reinforcer loss. To the extent that
the effects of DRO can be explained through
reinforcer loss, it is possible that the two treat-
ments are functionally similar.
Variations in Signals
Researchers have recently evaluated the
effects of adding discriminative stimuli to signal
either when the DRO is in place (Della Rosa,
Fellman, DeBiase, DeQuinzio, & Taylor,
2015) or the onset of a specic procedural
component within the DRO arrangement
3
(Hammond, Iwata, Fritz, & Dempsey, 2011).
Hammond et al. (2011) compared momentary
DRO (mDRO) with and without a signal that
preceded reinforcer delivery. The signal con-
sisted of the experimenter holding the rein-
forcer above her head. In both conditions, the
experimenter delivered the reinforcer if problem
behavior did not occur at the moment the
interval elapsed. The unsignaled condition
reduced the problem behaviors of two partici-
pants more effectively. Thus, signaling when
the response requirement was in place reduced
the effectiveness of the mDRO.
In the mDRO evaluated by Hammond
et al. (2011), the signal specied brief periods
in which problem behavior reset the interval,
possibly resulting in discriminated responding
rather than general suppression of target behav-
ior. An alternative is to arrange the DRO so
that any target responses (both before and after
the signal onset) reset the programmed interval.
The signal would then indicate the upcoming
delivery of the reinforcer following continued
absence rather than the momentary absence of
behavior. However, we are not aware of
research that has evaluated this type of signaled
DRO arrangement.
As an alternative to providing a signal during
the DRO interval, Watts, Wilder, Gregory,
Leon, and Ditzian (2013) evaluated the effects
of a rule that described the DRO contingency
(i.e., 20 s, whole interval, nonresetting) imme-
diately before each session with four children
with autism. The DRO with rules immediately
suppressed the target behavior for all partici-
pants, whereas DRO without rules was less
effective. The rules may have functioned simi-
larly to a brief signal, circumventing the need
for signals to be presented throughout the
DRO interval. However, the effects of brief
rules versus continuous signals may vary at dif-
ferent interval durations, and Watts et al. did
not evaluate intervals of varying duration. In
general, more research is needed to determine
the value of signals in DRO arrangements.
4 JOSHUA JESSEL and EINAR T. INGVARSSON
Variations in Momentary Schedules
With typical mDRO arrangements, target
responses do not cancel or reset reinforcer
delivery if they occur before the interval has
elapsed. Jessel and Borrero (2014) evaluated an
alternative mDRO arrangement, in which the
resetting feature depended on the number of
target responses emitted. The level of tolerance
(the number of target responses allowed with-
out resetting the interval) was based on baseline
response rates established using a VR schedule.
Jessel and Borrero found that target responding
(mouse clicks in a computer program) was
eliminated for most of the participants, even
though the contingency allowed up to 50% of
baseline response rates to occur without redu-
cing the amount of reinforcement. The authors
used the term DRO with tolerance to describe
this nding1. Thus, the effectiveness of DRO
may not be compromised by less stringent
response requirements. This is potentially sig-
nicant because stringent DRO criteria may
not be practical for all behaviors or settings.
Future research could focus on the clinical
implications of the DRO-with-tolerance nd-
ing and compare it with other procedures
(e.g., DRL).
In some cases, it may be impractical to con-
duct a whole-interval DRO, rather than an
mDRO, because the programmed contingency
requires continuous observation. Clinically, an
mDRO may be appropriate when the target
behavior is covert in nature. Toussaint and
Tiger (2012) found that skin picking exhibited
by a 12-year-old boy was maintained by auto-
matic reinforcement and occurred when he was
1
Previous research has used the term full-session differ-
ential reinforcement of low-rate behavior (DRL; see
Dietz & Repp, 1973); however, Jessel and Borrero (2014)
found the schedule to be more related to a DRO because
the reinforcer was presented at the end of the interval,
based on the minimal or nonoccurrence of the target
response. In addition, the schedule is typically used to
eliminate or decrease problem behavior, which bears more
practical similarities with a DRO than a DRL, which is
typically used to pace appropriate behavior.
unsupervised. Tokens, exchangeable for 30-s
access to a preferred video, were provided on a
variable mDRO schedule: The experimenter
entered the room at programmed intervals and
delivered a token if skin picking was not occur-
ring at that moment. Skin picking remained
low as the mDRO interval was thinned to
5 min. In such applications, a more typical
DRO would have been cumbersome, and it is
not certain that the intervention effects would
have extended to unsupervised periods.
Practical Implications
Novel procedural variations of DRO
arrangements continue to appear in the litera-
ture. These research developments have direct
implications for clinical practice and could lend
themselves to therapeutic extensions. We offer
four tentative procedural considerations based
on recent DRO research, with the caveat that
more research is needed to evaluate each of
these considerations. First, it may be advisable
to avoid signals when using mDRO schedules.
Second, DROs that permit some occurrence of
the target response (e.g., mDRO) may be bene-
cial for problem behavior that is unlikely to
be completely eliminated or occurs covertly.
Third, functional reinforcers should be used
when possible to capitalize on multiple
response-reducing processes. However, when
use of functional reinforcers is not feasible,
arbitrary reinforcers can be programmed.
Fourth, practitioners and applied researchers
should consider measuring other behavior to
help identify whether appropriate behavior dis-
places the target problem behavior or if other
forms of problem behavior emerge. These pro-
cedural considerations will most likely be
rened in future research.
REFERENCES
Austin, J. L., Groves, E. A., Reynish, L. C., &
Francis, L. L. (2015). Validating trial-based func-
tional analyses in mainstream primary school
 ADVANCES IN DRO PROCEDURES
classrooms. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48,
274288. doi: 10.1002/jaba.208
Capriotti, M. R., Brandt, B. C., Ricketts, E. J.,
Espil, F. M., & Woods, D. W. (2012). Comparing
the effects of differential reinforcement of other
behavior and response-cost contingencies on tics in
youth with Tourette syndrome. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 45, 251263. doi: 10.1901/
jaba.2012.45-251
Catania, A. C. (2013). Learning (5th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Cowdery, G. E., Iwata, B. A., & Pace, G. M. (1990).
Effects and side effects of DRO as treatment for self-
injurious behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 23, 497506. doi: 10.1901/
jaba.1990.23-497
Della Rosa, K. A., Fellman, D., DeBiase, C.,
DeQuinzio, J. A., & Taylor, B. A. (2015). The
effects of using a conditioned stimulus to cue DRO
schedules. Behavioral Interventions, 30, 219230. doi:
10.1002/bin.1409
Dietz, S. M., & Repp, A. C. (1973). Decreasing class-
room misbehavior through the use of DRL schedules
of reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
6, 457463. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1973.6-457
Hammond, J. L., Iwata, B. A., Fritz, J. N., &
Dempsey, C. M. (2011). Evaluation of xed momen-
tary DRO schedules under signaled and unsignaled
arrangements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
44, 6981. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-69
Jessel, J., & Borrero, J. C. (2014). A laboratory compari-
son of two variations of differential-reinforcement-of-
low-rate procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 47, 314324. doi: 10.1002/jaba.114
Jessel, J., Borrero, J. C., & Becraft, J. L. (2015). Differen-
tial reinforcement of other behavior increases untar-
geted behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
48, 402416. doi: 10.1002/jaba.204
Kahng, S., Iwata, B. A., & Lewin, A. B. (2002). Behav-
ioral treatment of self-injury, 1964 to 2000. American
Journal on Mental Retardation, 107, 212221. doi:
10.1352/0895-8017(2002)107 < 0212:btosit > 2.0.
co;2
Lattal, K. A. (2013). The ve pillars of the experimental
analysis of behavior. In G. J. Madden, W. V. Dube,
T. D. Hackenberg, G. P. Hanley, & K. A. Lattal
(Eds.), APA handbook of behavior analysis
(pp. 3364). Washington, DC: American Psychologi-
cal Association. doi: 10.1037/13937-002
Poling, A., & Ryan, C. (1982). Differential-reinforce-
ment-of-other-behavior schedules: Therapeutic
5
applications. Behavior Modication, 6, 321. doi:
10.1177/01454455820061001
Repp, A. C., & Deitz, S. M. (1974). Reducing aggressive
and self-injurious behavior of institutionalized
retarded children through reinforcement of other
behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7,
313325. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1974.7-313
Reynolds, G. S. (1961). Behavioral contrast. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 5771. doi:
10.1901/jeab.1961.4-57
Roane, H. S., & DeRosa, N. M. (2014). Reduction of
emergent dropping behavior during treatment of
elopement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47,
633638. doi: 10.1002/jaba.136
Rozenblat, E., Brown, J. L., Brown, A. K.,
Reeve, S. A., & Reeve, K. F. (2009). Effects of
adjusting DRO schedules on the reduction of stereo-
typic vocalizations in children with autism. Behavioral
Interventions, 24, 115. doi: 10.1002/bin.270
Specht, M. W., Woods, D. W., Nicotra, C. M.,
Kelly, L. M., Ricketts, E. J., Conelea, C. A.,
Walkup, J. T. (2013). Effects of tic suppression: Abil-
ity to suppress, rebound, negative reinforcement, and
habituation to the premonitory urge. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 51, 2430. doi: 10.1016/j.
brat.2012.09.009
Toussaint, K. A., & Tiger, J. H. (2012). Reducing covert
self-injurious behavior maintained by automatic rein-
forcement through a variable momentary DRO pro-
cedure. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45,
179184. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2012.45-179
Vollmer, T. R., & Iwata, B. A. (1992). Differential rein-
forcement as treatment for behavior disorders: Proce-
dural and functional variations. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 13, 393417. doi:
10.1016/0891-4222(92)90013-v
Wallace, M. D., Iwata, B. A., Hanley, G. P.,
Thompson, R. H., & Roscoe, E. M. (2012). Non-
contingent reinforcement: A further examination of
schedule effects during treatment. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 45, 709719. doi: 10.1901/
jaba.2012.45-709
Watts, A. C., Wilder, D. A., Gregory, M. K.,
Leon, Y., & Ditzian, K. (2013). The effect of rules
on differential reinforcement of other behavior. Jour-
nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 680684. doi:
10.1002/jaba.53
Received November 2, 2015
Final acceptance January 28, 2016
Action Editor, Henry Roane