Suppression of Self‐stimulation: Three Alternative Strategies

Harris, Sandra; Wolchik, Sharlene A.

doi:10.1901/jaba.1979.12-185

Cited by 118 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Rollings, Baumeister, and Baumeister (1977) used overcorrection to reduce one kind of high-rate, selfstimulatory behavior (body-rocking), only to observe a concurrent increase in head-nodding, a selfstimulatory response that previously had occurred at low rates. Harris and Wolchik (1979) observed an increase in head-nodding after suppressing hand movements with overcorrection in one of their autistic subjects.…”

Section: The Blocking Effectmentioning

confidence: 89%

Self‐stimulatory Behavior and Perceptual Reinforcement

Lovaas¹,

Newsom²,

Hickman³

1987

J of App Behav Analysis

313

198

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-stimulatory behavior is repetitive, stereotyped, functionally autonomous behavior seen in both normal and developmentally disabled populations, yet no satisfactory theory of its development and major characteristics has previously been offered. We present here a detailed hypothesis of the acquisition and maintenance of self-stimulatory behavior, proposing that the behaviors are operant responses whose reinforcers are automatically produced interoceptive and exteroceptive perceptual consequences. The concept of perceptual stimuli and reinforcers, the durability of self-stimulatory behaviors, the sensory extinction effect, the inverse relationship between self-stimulatory and other behaviors, the blocking effect of self-stimulatory behavior on new learning, and response substitution effects are discussed in terms of the hypothesis. Support for the hypothesis from the areas of sensory reinforcement and sensory deprivation is also reviewed. Psychologists and ethologists, who have been studying these behaviors for some time, have referred to them as "abnormal stereotyped acts," "mannerisms," "motility disturbances," "ritualistic acts," "rhythmic habit patterns," "blindisms," or "autisms" (e.g., Baumeister & Forehand, 1973;Berkson, 1967;Mitchell & Etches, 1977 (Lovaas, Varni, Koegel, & Lorsch, 1977) despite our discouragement of it. Other unexpected and elaborate repertoires also developed during treatment, such as obsession with numbers, compulsive arrangement of letters, and frequent assembly and reassembly of the same jigsaw puzzle (Epstein, Taubman, & Lovaas, 1985). The children who made the largest gains in treatment were also the ones who emerged with the largest repertoire of such "personally contributed" behaviors.To date, no comprehensive theory of self-stimulatory behavior in the developmentally disabled has been proposed. Most theorizing in this area has consisted of unelaborated accounts of specific experimental results, often focusing on body-rock-46 SELF-STIMULATORY BEHAVIOR ing as the "prototypical" self-stimulatory behavior. As a result, Baumeister (1978) found it necessary to create a five-way classification scheme simply to impose some order on the many different accounts, noting that none explained very many findings. The purpose of this paper is to present in some detail the hypothesis that self-stimulatory behavior is operant behavior that is maintained automatically by the reinforcing perceptual stimuli that it produces. This hypothesis will be used to explain the acquisition of representative behaviors and the etiology of self-stimulatory behavior in developmentally disabled persons, as well as certain prominent characteristics of self-stimulatory behavior. Empirical support for this hypothesis is offered from relevant areas of research. The Discussion considers two representative alternative theories and describes implications of our hypothesis for the treatment of developmentally disabled persons and the understanding of apparently related behaviors in other populations. PERCEPTUAL REINFO...

show abstract

Section: The Blocking Effectmentioning

confidence: 89%

Self‐stimulatory Behavior and Perceptual Reinforcement

Lovaas¹,

Newsom²,

Hickman³

1987

J of App Behav Analysis

313

198

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Time-out procedures and differential reinforcement of other behavior, although commonly utilized, have not been shown to be highly effective (Harris & Wolchik, 1979). Alternatively, overcorrection was validated early on as an effective intervention for self-stimulatory behaviors (Foxx & Azrin, 1973;Harris & Wolchik, 1979). Overcorrection involves both physically preventing the target behavior from occurring and also prompting the individual to engage in some alternative and more appropriate form of the same behavior.…”

Section: Stereotypy As Self-stimulatory Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

Stereotypy in autism: The importance of function

Cunningham

Schreibman

2008

Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders

239

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We argue for the utility of a functional definition of stereotypy based on evidence of both sensory automatic and socially mediated reinforcement contingencies in the occurrence of stereotypy in children with autism. A predetermined sensory function of stereotypy is often invoked in the behavioral literature and the term "self-stimulatory behavior" is commonly misused as interchangeable with "stereotypy." We discuss evidence for a variety of potential functional properties of stereotypy. Diagnostic definitions are reviewed and support for both sensory and social functions is outlined. We argue that stereotypies should be described and categorized according to their function, rather than form. Furthermore, treatment decisions should be based on a functional interpretation of stereotypy, which acknowledges its operant and heterogeneous quality in autism.

show abstract

“…For example, Harris and Wolchik (1979) found DRO to be ineffective in reducing noninjurious stereotypic behavior in all 4 of their subjects. The generality of our findings is limited due to the indusion of only 1 subject.…”

Section: Phase 2: Effects Of Tokenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects and Side Effects of Dro as Treatment for Self‐injurious Behavior

Cowdery

Iwata

Pace

1990

J of App Behav Analysis

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A three-part controlled case study is presented in which severe and longstanding self-injurious behavior exhibited by a 9-year-old-boy was treated successfully with differential reinforcement of other behavior. In Phase 1, an experimental analysis demonstrated that the boy's scratching was not maintained by environmental contingencies; instead, it appeared that the self-injurious behavior was a stereotypic (automatically reinforced) response. In Phase 2, the effects of an escalating differentialreinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule mediated through token reinforcement (pennies) were evaluated in a reversal design. Results showed that differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior eliminated self-injurious behavior very quickly and for periods of time as long as 30 min. A noteworthy side effect observed during Phase 2 was the occurrence of crying behavior following the nondelivery of reinforcement. In Phase 3, the token program was gradually extended in 30-min increments throughout the day. Additionally, results of a brief multielement manipulation showed that the effects oftoken reinforcement were superior to those ofa more easily administered differential reinforcement of other behavior based on social reinforcement, which differed little from baseline.DESCRIPTORS

show abstract

Suppression of Self‐stimulation: Three Alternative Strategies

Cited by 118 publications

References 15 publications

Self‐stimulatory Behavior and Perceptual Reinforcement

Self‐stimulatory Behavior and Perceptual Reinforcement

Stereotypy in autism: The importance of function

Effects and Side Effects of Dro as Treatment for Self‐injurious Behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About