What Is Differential Reinforcement of Incompatible Behavior in ABA Therapy?
Differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior (DRI) is an Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) procedure that reduces an interfering behavior by reinforcing a different behavior that physically cannot occur at the same time. The defining feature of DRI is the incompatibility itself: the replacement behavior makes the original behavior mechanically impossible. Sitting in a chair is incompatible with running around the room. Hands folded in lap are incompatible with hitting. Drawing on paper is incompatible with drawing on walls. When the behavior technician reinforces the incompatible behavior consistently, the original behavior naturally decreases because the learner can’t do both at once. DRI is a close sibling of differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA); the key difference is that DRA reinforces a functional alternative without requiring physical incompatibility.
The mechanism is elegant. Many interfering behaviors persist because they’re reinforced, often inadvertently, by the environment. DRI doesn’t require the team to identify the exact function of the original behavior or to extinguish it perfectly—physical incompatibility does much of the work. The learner simply cannot engage in the incompatible behavior and the original behavior at the same moment. As the incompatible behavior becomes more frequent through reinforcement, the original behavior has fewer opportunities to occur.
According to the Evidence-Based Instructional Practices for Young Children with Autism resource at Vanderbilt University, a DRI procedure works by withholding reinforcement for the challenging behavior while reinforcing a replacement behavior that cannot co-occur with it. Common examples include reinforcing hands in lap during circle time (instead of touching nearby peers or objects), or reinforcing drawing on paper (instead of drawing on tables or walls).
DRI is most useful when the learner consistently engages in the interfering behavior alongside an otherwise appropriate behavior at the same time. If a learner can raise their hand while also calling out in class, raising their hand isn’t an incompatible behavior for calling out—so the team would choose a different procedure. The behavior analyst designs the DRI based on what the learner can do, what they can’t do simultaneously, and what will be meaningful to reinforce in the learner’s daily life.
Support for Your Child’s Growth
Learn more about our ABA services and how we can help your child reach their full potential.
Examples of Differential Reinforcement of Incompatible Behavior
Example 1: Hands in lap during circle time
A behavior technician working with a five-year-old client notices the learner reaches out to touch peers and grab classroom materials during morning circle time. The behavior analyst designs a DRI procedure: each time the learner keeps their hands folded in their lap for 30 seconds, the behavior technician quietly delivers a small piece of a preferred snack. Hands in lap is physically incompatible with reaching out to touch peers and grab materials. Over the next two weeks, the learner’s hands-in-lap duration grows steadily, and the reaching and grabbing decline naturally as a consequence. The team then begins fading the snack and pairing the incompatible behavior with social praise that the learner has come to value.
Example 2: Walking instead of running in the hallway
A behavior technician supports a seven-year-old client who consistently runs in the school hallway during transitions, which creates safety risks. The DRI plan calls for the behavior technician to reinforce walking next to the therapist throughout each transition. Walking is incompatible with running—the learner cannot do both at the same time. Each successful transition earns a small token, and five tokens earn five minutes of preferred activity time in the next location. The data shows running drops to near zero across two months as walking becomes the more reinforced and more practiced response.
Example 3: Drawing on paper instead of on walls
A four-year-old client repeatedly draws on the walls during home sessions. The team’s functional behavior assessment suggests the drawing is maintained by access to the marker and the visual feedback of the line. The therapist designs a DRI plan with the family: when the learner draws on paper, the parent or therapist provides enthusiastic praise and lets the learner choose the next color. Drawing on paper is incompatible with drawing on walls—the marker can only be in one place at a time. The team also blocks access to wall surfaces during sessions to reduce reinforcement of the original behavior. For more on how teams approach interfering behaviors with reinforcement-based strategies, see our blog post on addressing aggressive behaviors in children.
Start a Meaningful Career in ABA
Interested in a career helping children with autism? Discover rewarding ABA career opportunities.
Why Is Differential Reinforcement of Incompatible Behavior Important in ABA?
DRI matters because the physical incompatibility piece does meaningful work that other procedures don’t. With DRA, the alternative behavior reduces the interfering behavior because it serves the same function and is more efficient. With DRI, the incompatible behavior reduces the interfering behavior because the learner simply cannot engage in both simultaneously. That’s a different mechanism—and it can be powerful in cases where the function of the original behavior is hard to pinpoint or where the original behavior is risky enough that the team wants a structural, not just functional, barrier in place.
DRI is also valuable because it’s often easier to implement consistently. Behavior technicians don’t have to make a function-based judgment in the moment about whether the alternative behavior is happening for the same reason as the interfering behavior—they just look at whether the incompatible behavior is occurring. That clarity is helpful in busy environments like classrooms, where multiple staff members may be implementing the procedure across many learners.
Like other differential reinforcement procedures, DRI fits within a contemporary ABA framework that prioritizes reinforcement-based intervention over aversive consequences. The procedure builds a skill the learner can use across settings, gives them something to do that earns reinforcement, and avoids the pitfalls of trying to suppress behavior through punishment. For more on how this approach has shaped contemporary ABA, read our blog post on a response to the controversy over autism’s most common therapy.
DRI is typically documented as part of a broader plan that guides how the team responds to interfering behavior across the learner’s day. For more on the document that pulls everything together, see our glossary entry on the behavior intervention plan.
FAQs About Differential Reinforcement of Incompatible Behavior
How is DRI different from DRA?
DRA reinforces an alternative behavior that serves the same function as the interfering behavior—for example, teaching a learner to request a break instead of screaming to escape a task. DRI reinforces a behavior that is physically incompatible with the interfering behavior—something the learner cannot do at the same time as the original behavior. DRI doesn’t require that the replacement behavior serve the same function; the physical incompatibility itself does the work. Many DRI procedures still happen to serve the same function as the interfering behavior, but that overlap isn’t required.
Can a behavior be both alternative and incompatible at the same time?
Yes—and many procedures function as both DRA and DRI simultaneously. If a learner who hits to gain attention is taught to tap a peer’s shoulder gently instead, that behavior is alternative (it serves the same function as hitting, accessing attention) and incompatible (the learner can’t tap gently and hit at the same time). Behavior analysts don’t always need to distinguish sharply between DRA and DRI; the categories are descriptive labels that help structure thinking about why a procedure works.
When is DRI the best choice?
DRI tends to be especially useful when the learner consistently engages in the interfering behavior even when other appropriate behavior is happening (calling out while also raising hand, for instance), when the function of the original behavior is unclear or hard to assess, when implementation by multiple staff members needs to be straightforward, or when the structural barrier of incompatibility offers a safety benefit. For situations where the function is clear and the team can teach a functionally equivalent response, DRA may be the stronger long-term choice.
What are some examples of incompatible behaviors that work well?
Good incompatible behaviors are physically impossible to do alongside the interfering behavior, easy enough for the learner to perform, and meaningful to reinforce. Hands in lap is incompatible with hitting. Walking is incompatible with running. Sitting in a chair is incompatible with eloping from a room. Whispering is incompatible with screaming. Drawing on paper is incompatible with drawing on walls. The behavior technician and behavior analyst select the incompatible behavior based on what the learner can already do and what will be useful in their environment.
How do behavior analysts know DRI is working?
The team tracks two metrics: the frequency or duration of the incompatible behavior (which should increase) and the frequency or duration of the interfering behavior (which should decrease). Both pieces of data matter. If the incompatible behavior is increasing but the interfering behavior isn’t decreasing in proportion, the team revisits the procedure—the incompatible behavior may not be truly incompatible, or the original behavior may have a source of reinforcement the team hasn’t identified. Behavior technicians collect this data across sessions, and the behavior analyst uses it to refine the plan.
Key Takeaways About Differential Reinforcement of Incompatible Behavior
- Differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior (DRI) reduces an interfering behavior by reinforcing a different behavior that physically cannot occur at the same time.
- Common examples include reinforcing hands in lap (incompatible with hitting), walking (incompatible with running), or drawing on paper (incompatible with drawing on walls).
- DRI is a sibling procedure to DRA; the key difference is that DRI requires physical incompatibility, while DRA only requires the replacement to serve the same function.
- DRI can be a strong choice when the function of the original behavior is hard to pinpoint, when implementation needs to be straightforward for multiple staff, or when a physical barrier between behaviors adds a safety benefit.
- Like all differential reinforcement procedures, DRI sits within contemporary ABA’s reinforcement-based, skill-building orientation rather than relying on aversive consequences.
- The behavior technician tracks data on both the incompatible behavior and the interfering behavior; the behavior analyst uses the data to refine the procedure over time.
