The use of negative practice to eliminate nocturnal headbanging

Wooden, Howard E.

doi:10.1016/0005-7916(74)90020-2

Cited by 11 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This exercise is to take place without a break. The major use of the procedure has been to eliminate tics (Jones, 1960;Raft, 1962;Walton, 1964;Yates, 1958), stuttering (Case, 1960;Yates, 1970), and head banging (Wooden, 1974). The success of the procedure suggests that the greater the overlap between the behavior practiced and the behavior to be eliminated, the greater will be the effect.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decreasing self-stimulatory behavior with physical exercise in a group of autistic boys

Watters

Watters²

1980

J Autism Dev Disord

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Five autistic boys were observed during 27 language training sessions. Each session followed one of three periods: physical exercise, TV watching, or regular academic work. It was found that the lowest levels of self-stimulation followed physical exercise, there were no differences in the levels of self-stimulation following TV watching and following academics, and the levels of correct question answering were not affected by the three different previous periods.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decreasing self-stimulatory behavior with physical exercise in a group of autistic boys

Watters

Watters²

1980

J Autism Dev Disord

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The latter group comprises "exposure" procedures (Marks, 1981) and includes studies utilizing negative or massed practice (Azrin, Nunn & Frantz, 1980;St. James-Roberts & Powell, 1979;Wooden, 1974) and flooding or implosive therapy (Levis & Hare, 1977;Marks, 1981). The use of charting (self-recording) as an exposure procedure has also been described (Katkin, 1978).…”

Section: Behai*ioural Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paradoxical intervention in psychotherapy

Griffin

1985

Australian Psychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

by interpreting a programme [or anorexic patients in terms of several common paradoxical procedures. The techniques 0 1 symptom prescription, relraming, restraining, written messages and positive interpretations are outlined and discussed together with Frankl's logotherapeutic techniques of paradoxical intention and dereflection. It is noted that various schools of therapy have contributed to the use of these techniques. Several theoretical and conceptual issues pertinent to the utilization o f paradoxical interventions in psychotherapy are briefly discussed. The notions of client resistance and the double bind seem central to most paradoxical manoeuvres, and possible difficulties with these are commented upon. It is suggested that a clarification of paradoxical procedures could be aided by a consideration of non-paradoxical explanations and by distinguishing between a focus on systems versus individuals. An attempt is made to define paradoxical interventions as a class by concentrating on rundamental components. Finally, the current status of paradoxical psychotherapy is summarized and possible future developments noted.The diverse and complex field of paradoxical psychotherapy is introduced Requests for reprints should be sent to Michael W. Griffin,

show abstract

“…Martin, Weller, & Matson, 1977;Rush, Close, Hops, & Agosta, 1976) and SIB (e.g., has been less broadly effective. Overcorrection procedures have also been used effectively in the treatment of enuresis (Azrin, Sneed, & Foxx, 1973), recurrent vomiting Duker & Seys, 1977), nocturnal head banging (Wooden, 1974), persistent floor sprawling (Azrin & Wesolowski, 1974), public disrobing (Foxx, 1976), disruptive behavior (Azrin & Powers, 1975), and noncompliance (Doleys, Wells, Hobbs, Roberts, & Cartelli, 1976).…”

Section: Overcorrectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioral suppression of seriously disruptive behavior in psychotic and retarded patients: A review of punishment and its alternatives.

Harris

Ersner-Hershfield²

1978

Psychological Bulletin

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of punishment procedures to suppress seriously disruptive behavior has generated considerable controversy. Differential reinforcement of behaviors incompatible with disruptive behavior is attractive to many because it does not involve aversive procedures. Unfortunately, differential reinforcement has shown mixed results and may be effective only when combined with other procedures. Contingent removal of reinforcement (time-out) has been found moderately effective for dealing with self-stimulation and aggression but is of more limited value in treating severe self-injury. Overcorrection also has a beneficial effect on a variety of serious management problems. Electric shock, the most controversial procedure reviewed here, has been the focus of considerable debate but may have value under certain conditions. Research on generalization, maintenance, and side effects attached to these various procedures is reviewed, and ethical issues are examined.

show abstract

The use of negative practice to eliminate nocturnal headbanging

Cited by 11 publications

References 4 publications

Decreasing self-stimulatory behavior with physical exercise in a group of autistic boys

Decreasing self-stimulatory behavior with physical exercise in a group of autistic boys

Paradoxical intervention in psychotherapy

Behavioral suppression of seriously disruptive behavior in psychotic and retarded patients: A review of punishment and its alternatives.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About