Social control of self-injurious behavior of organic etiology

We evaluated problem behavior and appropriate behavior using the matching equation with 4 individuals with developmental disabilities. Descriptive observations were conducted during interactions between the participants and their primary care providers in either a clinical laboratory environment (3 participants) or the participant's home (1 participant). Data were recorded on potential reinforcers, problem behavior, and appropriate behavior. After identifying the reinforcers that maintained each participant's problem behavior by way of functional analysis, the descriptive data were analyzed retrospectively, based on the matching equation. Results showed that the proportional rate of problem behavior relative to appropriate behavior approximately matched the proportional rate of reinforcement for problem behavior for all participants. The results extend prior research because a functional analysis was conducted and because multiple sources of reinforcement (other than attention) were evaluated. Methodological constraints were identified, which may limit the application of the matching law on both practical and conceptual levels.DESCRIPTORS: matching, descriptive analysis, severe problem behavior, functional analysis Choice may be defined as the emission of one of two or more alternative and usually incompatible responses (Catania, 1998). In operant laboratories, choice has been evaluated typically in concurrent-schedule arrangements (e.g., Herrnstein, 1961) under which two or more schedules operate simultaneously but independently, and consequences are delivered for different response alternatives. Herrnstein provided a quantitative description of behavior on concurrent schedules of reinforcement now known as the matching law. The matching law states that organisms will distribute their behavior

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Application of the Matching Law to Severe Problem Behavior

Borrero

Vollmer

2002

“…One possibility is that the behavior is maintained by automatic positive or negative reinforcement that occurs independent ofsocial variables (see Vollmer, in press, for a recent review). For example, automatic positive reinforcement may take the form of endogenous opiate production (Sandman, Barron, & Colman, 1990); automatic negative reinforcement may result from pain-attenuating behavior such as self-scratching (Carr & McDowell, 1980) and ear hitting (Cataldo & Harris, 1982). A second possibility is that behavior is multiply controlled .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment of Self‐injury and Hand Mouthing Following Inconclusive Functional Analyses

Vollmer

Marcus

LeBlanc

1994

202

142

Numerous studies have used functional analyses to prescribe interventions for severe behavior disorders. The majority of these studies have focused on behavior that is dearly maintained by socially mediated reinforcement, such as contingent access to attention, tangibles, or escape from instructional demands. However, a significant proportion of functional analyses do not yield conclusive results. We examined interventions for 3 children with severe disabilities following incondusive functional analyses. First, preferred stimuli were identified for each child via a stimulus preference assessment. Second, a functional analysis was conducted for 2 of the 3 children. High rates of aberrant behavior were seen even (if not especially) in no-interaction sessions. The 3rd child was observed for several consecutive no-interaction sessions; behavior persisted in this condition. Third, interventions based on environmental enrichment were analyzed in an analogue setting. For all of the children, environmental enrichment decreased aberrant behavior if preferred stimuli were used in the procedure. To obtain further reductions in aberrant behavior, explicit reinforcement of toy play was required for 2 children, and a brief (5-s) time-out was necessary with 1 child. yses have proven to be successful, the generality of the current literature may be limited because most studies have focused on behavior that is clearly maintained by socially mediated reinforcement (e.g., attention, tangible reinforcement, or escape from instructions). In an epidemiological analysis, Iwata et al. (1994) reported that approximately 5% of their functional analyses of self-injurious behavior were incondusive, and more than 25% did not show a sensitivity to socially mediated reinforcement; Derby et al. (1992) reported that 34% of their clients displayed aberrant behavior that appeared to be maintained by automatic sensory consequences. Despite these data, disproportionately few studies have focused on the treatment of behavior disorders following undifferentiated results of functional analyses.The focus on interventions for behavior maintained by socially mediated reinforcement may be because an experimenter or clinician can control social contingencies. For example, if a behavior is maintained by attention, the environment can be arranged so that attention is withheld or delivered at the experimenter's discretion (e.g., Vollmer, Iwa-331 1994) 279 331-344 NUMBER2 (summER 1994)

“…It has also been shown that the same behavioral topography can be maintained by different reinforcement contingencies across individuals (Iwata, Pace, Cowdery, & Miltenberger, 1994) or by multiple contingencies within the same individual Guess & Carr, 1991). For example, Carr and McDowell (1980) Transfer of function also can occur if a current (neutral) contingency extends to other reinforcers. For example, the delivery of attention or removal of instructions as neutral stimuli can become conditioned reinforcers if they are paired with reinforcing stimuli such as food or access to free-time activities.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Transfer of Behavioral Function as a Contributing Factor in Treatment Relapse

Lerman

Iwata

Smith

et al. 1994

When relapse occurs following successful treatment to reduce problem behavior, it is often attributed to inconsistent implementation of maintenance programs. Although less likely, another potential cause for relapse is a change in the behavior's maintaining contingency over time. To examine this possibility, additional assessment was conducted with 4 individuals who were rereferred to a daytreatment program due to recurrence of their self-injurious behavior (SIB) 2 months to 2 years following successful treatment. In each case, the original treatment had been developed and implemented based on the outcome of functional analysis assessments. For 1 subject, results of a second functional analysis were consistent with those from the original assessment, indicating that the function of her SIB had remained unchanged. For the other 3 subjects, results of the second assessment suggested that their SIB had acquired new or additional functions. These findings indicate that factors other than program inconsistency can lead to relapse, and that clinical reevaluation for such cases should include a current functional analysis to determine if new treatment components are needed.