Treating destructive behavior reinforced by increased caregiver compliance with the participant's mands

Abstract

Functional analyses sometimes do not identify momentary fluctuations in the function of destructive behavior (Bowman, Fisher, Thompson, & Piazza, 1997). In such cases, individuals may mand for the reinforcer that is currently most preferred and display destructive behavior if that mand goes unreinforced. In this study, we conducted a mand analysis to test whether destructive behavior functioned as a precurrent response that increased reinforcement for the participant's mands. We then evaluated a treatment that matched this function of destructive behavior by providing differential or time‐based reinforcement of participant mands in accordance with multiple or chained schedules with reinforcement‐schedule thinning. Decreases in destructive behavior averaged 97.4% across cases. We discuss these results relative to the importance of matching treatments for destructive behavior to operant functions for both traditional and idiosyncratic functions of destructive behavior.

Mand compliance as a contingency controlling problem behavior: A systematic review

“…In three of the five analyses in which problem behavior did not show sensitivity to mand compliance, other variables were identified within the same analysis (attention for Katy in Fisher et al, 2004; attention for Stephen in Hagopian et al, 2005; escape from difficult demands for Bill in Roscoe et al, 2015). Two more analyses were undifferentiated with respect to mand compliance and terminated without the observation of problem behavior in any condition (Participant 12 in Owen et al, 2020; Dave in Roscoe et al, 2015). The other 32 of 65 applications across 31 participants tested mand compliance as part of a synthesized contingency in an IISCA (n = 10 studies, denoted with an asterisk in Tables 1 and 2), all of which were (a) informed by an open‐ended caregiver interview, and (b) differentiated.…”

“…Said another way, when a standard functional analysis detects a functional relation, it is unlikely to be followed by further analysis (cf. Owen et al, 2020), but this does not mean that untested contingencies such as mand compliance are not functionally relevant to an individual's problem behavior. All analyses that tested mand compliance following an undifferentiated standard analysis were informed by either (a) caregiver report (e.g., Bowman et al, 1997), (b) descriptive assessment (e.g., Roscoe et al, 2015), (c) informal observation of behavior before, during, or after the initial functional analysis (e.g., Betz et al, 2013), or (d) some combination of these assessment tactics (see Table 1).…”

“…Some treatments were elaborated with a punishment contingency arranged for problem behavior (e.g., a facial screen contingent on problem behavior for Ben in Kurtz et al, 2015). Some thinned reinforcement using either a multiple schedule (e.g., Greer et al, 2016), a chained schedule (e.g., Owen et al, 2020), or contingency‐based delay and denial tolerance training (e.g., Hanley et al, 2014). Eluri et al (2016) combined some of these strategies in their initial treatment package, using a discriminative stimulus (i.e., a red card) to signal a period of nonreinforcement for mands and a token system with a response cost to chain responses indicative of cooperation with adult instruction during that period.…”

“…Since Bowman et al (1997), and especially in recent years, several authors have replicated the analysis and treatment and extended their outcomes (Betz et al, 2013; Eluri et al, 2016; Fisher et al, 2004; Greer et al, 2016; Hagopian et al, 2005; Kurtz et al, 2015; O'Connor et al, 2003; Owen et al, 2020; Roscoe et al, 2015; Schmidt et al, 2017; Torres‐Viso et al, 2018). The abovementioned replications of Bowman et al assessed the mand compliance contingency in isolation, usually following inconclusive standard functional analysis results (e.g., Iwata et al, 1982/1994).…”

“…The description of this contingency was predicated on Skinner's (1957) classification of mands (e.g., requests) as verbal operants under the control of particular establishing operations (EOs), the topographies of which specified their reinforcers. Bowman et al (1997), as well as Fisher (2001) and Owen et al (2020), have suggested that the contingency involves a precurrent relation between problem behavior and mands in that the emission of problem behavior increases the effectiveness of a subsequent mand at producing reinforcement. Said another way, individuals with behavior sensitive to this contingency exhibit problem behavior because mands are more likely to be reinforced in its presence than its absence.…”