Evaluation of Stimulus Control Over a Communication Response as an Intervention for Stereotypical Responding

Abstract

Stereotypical behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement often does not result in harm but may be undesirable in some situations. In the current investigation, participants were 2 individuals who engaged in nonharmful stereotypical responses shown in an analogue functional analysis to be insensitive to social contingencies. After bringing these responses under stimulus control using differential punishment, both participants learned a mand to terminate punishment for stereotypy. We also assessed whether the mand could be brought under stimulus control.

Multiple schedules in practical application: Research trends and implications for future investigation

“…Multiple schedules have been combined with treatment interventions (e.g., FCT) to treat problem behavior maintained by access to adult attention (Fisher et al, 1998; Rooker et al, 2013), access to tangible items (Betz et al, 2013; Hagopian et al, 2005), access to edible items (Jarmolowicz, DeLeon, & Contrucci Kuhn, 2009), interruption of ritualistic behavior (Rispoli, Camargo, Machalicek, Lang, & Sigafoos, 2014), escape from academic instruction (Álvarez et al, 2014), and problem behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement (Anderson et al, 2010; Doughty et al, 2007). …”

“…For many applications, although the primary concern was problem behavior such as self-injurious behavior (SIB) or aggression, the dependent variable that was evaluated using a multiple schedule was an FCR or other appropriate behavior (e.g., requesting teacher attention). Therefore, we categorized response topographies as FCR (i.e., an alternative communicative response taught during FCT; e.g., Fisher et al, 1998; Hanley et al, 2001), socially appropriate behavior (i.e., an existing appropriate response that occurred at high rates or at inappropriate times; e.g., Tiger & Hanley, 2004, 2005), or problem behavior if the investigators included a specific problem behavior in the multiple-schedule evaluation (e.g., Anderson et al, 2010). …”

“…That is, in addition to arranging periods in which reinforcement for a target behavior is available and unavailable (i.e., EXT), researchers have associated these periods with a variety of salient environmental stimuli to promote stimulus control. In particular, multiple schedules have been used (a) to promote stimulus control over high-rate appropriate behaviors (e.g., frequent requests for adult attention) in typically developing children (Cammilleri, Tiger, & Hanley, 2008; Tiger & Hanley, 2004, 2005; Vargo, Heal, Epperley, & Kooistra, 2014), (b) to teach individuals with intellectual disabilities who engage in severe problem behavior to request the putative reinforcer maintaining problem behavior only when the S D is present and to gradually tolerate longer periods in which the S D is absent (Betz, Fisher, Roane, Mintz, & Owen, 2013; Fisher, Kuhn, & Thompson, 1998; Hagopian, Toole, Long, Bowman, & Lieving, 2004; Hagopian, Contrucci Kuhn, Long, & Rush, 2005; Hanley, Iwata, & Thompson, 2001; Rooker, Jessel, Kurtz, & Hagopian, 2013), and (c) to signal periods of punishment in the treatment of severe problem behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement displayed by individuals with intellectual disabilities (Anderson, Doughty, Doughty, Williams, & Saunders, 2010; Doughty, Anderson, Doughty, Williams, & Saunders, 2007; Rollings & Baumeister, 1981). …”

The use of a multiple schedule to decrease toe walking in a child with autism

“…Nevertheless, the arbitrary reinforcement (i.e., praise) and punishment, in the form of a reprimand, associated with the multiple schedule were sufficient to maintain appropriate walking despite the continuous availability of the functional reinforcer. Although previous research has demonstrated discriminative control over behavior using a nonfunctional reinforcer in the context of a multiple schedule (cf., Anderson, Doughty, Doughty, Williams, & Saunders, ; Doughty, Anderson, Doughty, Williams, & Saunders, ; McKenzie et al, ; Piazza et al, ; Rapp et al, ), these studies have not focused specifically on toe walking.…”

Repetitive Behavior in Children with Down Syndrome: Functional Analysis and Intervention

“…These interventions targeted loud or repetitive vocalizations (Athens, Vollmer, Sloman, & Pipkin, 2008;St. Peter et al, 2005;Shaw & Simms, 2009), tongue protrusion and tongue chewing (Rosine & Martin, 1983), and motor stereotypy (Anderson, Doughty, Doughty, Williams, & Saunders, 2010;Rapp, Vollmer, Peter, Dozier, & Cotnoir, 2004). The most common approaches in these studies were aversive: positive punishment taking the form of a visual cue (Shaw & Simms, 2009), response blocking (Anderson et al, 2010), and contingent demands (Athens et al, 2008) combined with other procedures.…”