Differential Reinforcement of Incompatible/Alternate Behaviors (DRI/DRA)

In previous section, we described a procedure for reducing undesired target behaviors using a procedure called differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO). Although this is a useful and relatively easy procedure, it has some drawbacks, for example, it does not teach the student any specific appropriate behaviors, but, only reinforces the absence of particular undesired behaviors. This can be referred to as a “behavior vacuum” where there is no functional, competing behavior to learn. This lecture discusses the next level of intervention, which teaches specific appropriate behaviors that “compete” with, or are incompatible with, the undesired behaviors.

Example

Remember Alan? Alan continues to have a lot of difficulty with interacting with his peers. His IEP states “Alan needs to learn how to initiate and maintain conversation with his peers.” An earlier intervention using a DRO it helped Alan remain with his group more often. However, it did not teach him how to interact with anyone. Ridgewood Middle School has an excellent teacher in the eighth grade, who suggested to Alan’s teacher that he consider using a DRI procedure. Rather than walking away from his group, Alan needed to be taught to initiate a conversation with one of his peers. This behavior of “initiating conversation” would be incompatible with “walking away” and would teach Alan a functional skill that could be used in different settings.

1. What is DRI?

One surefire way to eliminate the possibility of developing a behavior vacuum (as when using a DRO procedure) is to use differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior (DRI). As described in our example above, DRI involves reinforcing behaviors that are physically incompatible with the undesired target behavior. That is, a DRI provides reinforcement for behaviors whose display makes it physically impossible to display of the inappropriate behavior.

When a DRI involves reinforcing alternative, desirable behaviors it is called differential reinforcement of alternate behavior (DRA) because the procedure focuses on developing behaviors that are offered as options or alternatives (though not always incompatible) to responding in typical, though inappropriate, ways. Thus, DRA is slightly different from DRI. For example, for out-of-seat behavior it would make sense to increase (to reinforce) the incompatible behavior of in-seat behavior. This would be an example of DRI. But if we were also to reinforce “raising one’s hand to reply to a teacher-directed request,” this would be an example of DRA. While the latter is not incompatible with being out-of-seat, the reinforcement competes with it. In either case, what you are trying to do with a DRI/DRA is to reinforce behaviors that make the display of the undesired behavior virtually impossible. While this “incompatibility” is fundamental to the DRI, “functionally alternative behaviors” are fundamental to the DRA. This strength of the DRI is also its weakness, however. It is often difficult to identify behaviors that are truly incompatible with the inappropriate behaviors.

The use of DRI/DRA permits you to exert the greatest amount of control over the undesired target behavior without intervening directly on the undesired behavior. This control occurs because the appropriate and inappropriate behavior cannot occur at the same time, since they are physically and/or functionally incompatible. Thus, a DRI is really a combination of a DRO and a DRA and represents a very powerful procedure for teaching new skills.

Examples of inappropriate vs. incompatible behaviors

• Hand-in-mouth while sitting at the table vs. using fork and knife
• Shouting loudly in class vs. quietly raising hand to speak
• Removing clothes vs. keeping clothes on
• Hitting peers vs. sharing/giving items they want
• Talking about bizarre things vs. talking about current events
• Keeping eyes on the teacher vs. looking out the window
• Fighting with peers vs. walking away from peers
• Picking nose vs. using a handkerchief to blow nose

2. How do you select an incompatible or functional alternative behavior?

1. Select behaviors that either competes with the undesired behavior or that are physically incompatible with its display. It is sometimes difficult to identify behaviors that are truly incompatible with the undesired target behavior. It such cases, continue the selection process below.
2. Select behaviors that are already in the student’s response repertoire (often a difficult task).
3. Select behavior(s) that can be maintained by the natural consequences in the environment; that is, behaviors that serve a practical purpose and are exhibited and reinforced by others within the natural environment.
4. Analyze the environment to determine whether the undesired behavior serves some communicative function in the environment and select an alternative behavior that is functionally equivalent to the undesired behavior. For example, signaling the need for a break from work may be functionally equivalent to hitting the teacher. Both behaviors terminate work. A DRA procedure would thus reinforce “signaling for a break” (i.e., signing BREAK) to suspend work whereas “hitting” would not result in reinforcement. In this example, signaling for a break is functionally equivalent to hitting and thus, would be an appropriate alternative behavior within a DRA paradigm.
5. Finally, reinforce selected alternative behavior at least as frequently (preferably at a greater frequency) and as consistently as the undesired behavior; it should be obtained with less effort, and be delivered with as short a delay between behavior and its reinforcer as the undesired behavior.

3. Advantages of DRI and DRA

1. Approach to managing undesired and inappropriate behavior
2. Focuses on positive reinforcement to develop skills and appropriate behaviors (i.e., it teaches a student what to do, not just what not to do.)
3. Have been used with a wide assortment of problem behaviors including self-injury, off-task behaviors, anti-social and disruptive behaviors.