New (old) perspectives on self‐injurious and aggressive biting

Abstract

Functional analyses and treatments of self-injurious behavior and aggression have shown that such behavior is often operant. In this paper, we will revisit evidence that a subset of selfinjurious and aggressive biting may be controlled primarily by antecedent events and may have phylogenetic origins. We propose that there is a research gap of more than four decades, if one considers the wealth of basic research on biting that occurred prior to 1977. To our knowledge, that body of basic research was never fully translated or directly applied within behavior analysis. It is known that organisms (including humans) sometimes bite in the presence of aversive events (broadly defined as the presentation of aversive stimuli or the removal of reinforcers). Thus, the variables controlling biting in the context of behavioral assessment and treatment require further analysis.

Prolegomena to any future philosophy of behavior analysis as a science

“…One side effect of punishment, in other words, is necessarily the behavior produced by the punisher. In other side effects, punishers may elicit aggressive behavior (e.g., Azrin et al, 1965;Azrin et al, 1967;Lloveras et al, 2022); those who deliver punishers may themselves become aversive, so children whose parents mainly apply punishment contingencies will probably be more likely to leave their households as soon as circumstances permit; and punishers may become discriminative stimuli when correlated with reinforcement contingencies (Holz & Azrin, 1961), so that one who then works for such stimuli is called a masochist. (Schuster & Rachlin, 1968) Negative reinforcement has been relegated to the dark side too, but distinguishing it from positive reinforcement is sometimes ambiguous.…”

“…Because of the former, responding occurs less often; it extinguishes. Because of the latter, aggressive behavior such as biting may emerge (Azrin et al, 1966; Lloveras et al, 2022). The first of these effects depends on a change in contingencies.…”

Bridging the gap between laboratory and applied research on response‐independent schedules

“…The extent to which this occurs likely depends on the history of the organism, which may explain the individual differences observed in research on functionally irrelevant NCR (e.g., Ingvarsson et al, 2009;Newman et al, 2021). Lloveras et al (2022) recently reviewed decades-old research on self-injurious and aggressive biting and reached similar conclusions regarding the potential antecedent functions of certain stimuli. As discussed by Hutchinson (1977) in a chapter in the Handbook of Operant Behavior, there is strong evidence that aversive stimuli (e.g., loud noises and other painful stimuli) and removal of reinforcers can elicit biting by humans and other organisms independent of an operant reinforcement contingency.…”

“…Lloveras et al ( 2022 ) pointed out that aversive stimuli, such as the ones that are frequently presented in demand conditions of functional analyses, can elicit biting and other problem behavior independent of operant contingencies. As noted by the authors, this implies that it may not be possible to distinguish between problem behavior maintained by an operant escape contingency and behavior that is elicited (or induced) by antecedent aversive stimuli— both outcomes would look the same in multielement time‐series graphs.…”

“…This would be consistent with recommendations for trauma‐informed care—indeed, some of the antecedent effects of the relevant stimuli might be due to a history of trauma (see Rajaraman et al, 2022 , for a detailed discussion). Lloveras et al ( 2022 ) astutely suggested demand fading as a potentially effective treatment for behavior induced by antecedent stimuli, because it involves both gradual exposure to the aversive stimuli and pairing with reinforcement. In general, treatment could start with noncontingent access to reinforcers that occasion behavior and emotional states that are incompatible with problem behavior escalation.…”