Problem Behavior is Predictable and Preventable Timothy R. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Problem Behavior is Predictable and Preventable Timothy R. Vollmer, Ph.D. Department of Psychology University of Florida

Overview I will make a case that at least five groups of evidence strongly support the notion that problem behavior is predictable and orderly. • The first group of evidence comes from research on the functional analysis of behavior. • The second group of evidence comes from research on the matching law. • The third group of evidence comes from research on extinction. • The fourth group of evidence comes from research on noncontingent reinforcement. • The fifth group of evidence comes from research on differential reinforcement. I will close by suggesting how the predictability and orderly nature of problem behavior leads to more effective behavioral interventions. That is, they are preventable.

Behavior Disorders/Problem Behavior • Self-injurious Behavior (SIB) • Aggression • Property Destruction • Tantrums • Severe stereotypic behavior • Classroom disruptive behavior

Operant Functions of Behavior Disorders • Socially mediated positive reinforcement • Socially mediated negative reinforcement • Automatic positive or negative reinforcement

Examples of socially mediated positive reinforcement maintaining problem behavior • Attention in the form of comfort statements • Attention in the form of proximity • Attention in the form of reprimands • Attention in the form of social interaction • Tangible items such as preferred toys, food items, drinks, videos, computers, etc.

Examples of socially mediated negative reinforcement • Escape or avoidance of instructional activity (includes reduced duration of instructional activity) • Escape or avoidance of self-care or daily living routines • Escape or avoidance of aversive sounds or situations

3 Attention 2 Escape 1 George 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Sessions Athens & Vollmer, 2010

Functional Analysis Results: Social Positive Reinforcement-Tangible Vollmer et al. (1999)

Functional Analysis Results: Social Negative Reinforcement-Escape Vollmer et al. (1995)

The Matching Law • In a concurrent arrangement, the relative rate of one response alternative will essentially “match” the relative rate of reinforcement available for that response alternative.

VI 2 Min VI 1 Min

Matching in Pigeon Key Pecks Proportion of Responses on Key A Proportion of Reinforcement for Key A Herrnstein, 1961

Matching in College Basketball: 2 and 3 point shots Proportion of 3 pt shots Proportion of Reinforcement for 3 pt shots Bourret & Vollmer, 2000

Matching in Child Problem Behavior Borrero & Vollmer, 2002

Averages Borrero et al.,2010

NCR Treatment Vollmer et al., 1993

Treatment-NCE

BL Instructional Fading 2.0 100 Percentage of Compliance Rate of Problem Behavior 80 1.5 Problem Behavior Compliance 60 1.0 40 0.5 20 1 2 3 4 5 Evan 0.0 0 10 20 30 40

BRIAN A. IWATA et 4a. 20 EXTINCTION + PHYSICAL GUIDANCE 50 . 40 . 30. 20. 10. 0. 50. 40 . 30 . 20. 10 . 0. -I LU 50 . z 40 . In U- -I 30 . 20. Iwata et al. 1990 'U z 10 . 0 u O. 50 . U I- 40 . 0 30, U. z 0I 20. ul 10. mu LU 0. IL 50 40. 30 , 20. 10 - 40 20 30 40 50 0 10 SESSIONS Percentage of 10-s intervals of SIB and percentage of trials of compliance across subjects and experimental Figure 2. conditions in Study 2.

Differential Reinforcement • Reinforcement of some specific form of appropriate behavior while minimizing reinforcement of problem behavior. Vollmer et al. (1999)

What does it all mean for treatment and intervention? • Problem behavior is sometimes what behavior analysts call “choice” (defined shortly). • Differential reinforcement involves essentially “stacking the deck” in favor of appropriate behavior. • This approach can be easily remembered by the simple rule of thumb: Maximize/Minimize (to be discussed).

What do Behavior Analysts mean by “choice”? • Allocation of responding on two or more response alternatives. • Each alternative is associated with some schedule of reinforcement, punishment, or both. • Allocation of responding is governed by the outcome of responding (consequences to behavior).

Other factors influencing response allocation • Quality of reinforcement • Magnitude/duration of reinforcement • Delay to reinforcement • Response effort • Punishment

Quality • Tastes good • Delicious!!! • 6 slices • 6 slices • 15 minute delivery • 15 minute delivery • Friendly staff • Friendly staff

Magnitude • Delicious • Delicious • 6 slices • 12 slices (2 for 1 deal) • 15 minute delivery • 15 minute delivery • Friendly staff • Friendly staff

Delay • Delicious • Delicious • 6 slices • 6 slices • 15 minute delivery • 30 minute delivery • Friendly staff • Friendly staff

Response Effort • Delicious • Delicious • 6 slices • 6 slices • No delivery (it takes 25 minutes to • 25 min delivery pick it up and get back home) • Friendly staff • Friendly staff

Punishment • Delicious • Delicious • 6 slices • 6 slices • 15 minute delivery • 15 minute delivery • Rude and angry staff • Friendly staff

Borrero et al. (2005)

Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior (DRA) • DRA is essentially a concurrent schedule. • Baseline circumstances (reinforcement schedules) usually favor problematic behavior. • Treatment circumstances represent schedules that favor appropriate behavior. • Ideally, Extinction vs. Reinforcement. • However, there are circumstances when extinction is not possible or practical.

Examples of factors influencing the application of extinction schedule • Treatment integrity failures. • Legal or ethical requirement to block attention- maintained self-injury or aggression. • Automatic reinforcement. • Large and/or fast individuals may produce escape even if we attempt escape extinction.

Differential Attention Baseline example Aggressive Appropriate Behavior Behavior Probability of Attention 1.0 0.2 Delay to Attention Quality of Attention Duration of Attention

Differential Attention Baseline example Aggressive Appropriate Behavior Behavior Probability of Attention 1.0 0.2 Delay to Attention < 3 sec on average > 20 sec Quality of Attention Duration of Attention

Differential Attention Baseline example Aggressive Appropriate Behavior Behavior Probability of Attention 1.0 0.2 Delay to Attention < 3 sec on average > 20 sec Quality of Attention Verbal and Physical Brief Verbal Attention Attention Duration of Attention

Differential Attention Baseline example Aggressive Appropriate Behavior Behavior Probability of Attention 1.0 0.2 Delay to Attention < 3 sec on average > 20 sec Quality of Attention Verbal and Physical Brief Verbal Attention Attention Duration of Attention > 20 sec < 3 sec

Differential Attention Solution Aggressive Appropriate Behavior Behavior Probability of Attention 1.0 1.0 Delay to Attention Quality of Attention Duration of Attention

Differential Attention Solution Aggressive Appropriate Behavior Behavior Probability of Attention 1.0 1.0 Delay to Attention < 3 sec < 3 sec Quality of Attention Duration of Attention

Differential Attention Solution Aggressive Appropriate Behavior Behavior Probability of Attention 1.0 1.0 Delay to Attention < 3 sec < 3 sec Quality of Attention Physical Attention Verbal and Physical Attention Duration of Attention

Differential Attention Solution Aggressive Appropriate Behavior Behavior Probability of Attention 1.0 1.0 Delay to Attention < 3 sec < 3 sec Quality of Attention Physical Attention Verbal and Physical Attention Duration of Attention < 10 sec Ø 20 sec

3 Responses per Attention 2 Escape Min 1 Greg George 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Sessions Sessions Athens & Vollmer, 2010

Responses per Min Greg Sessions Athens & Vollmer, 2010

Using Differential Reinforcement • Maximize reinforcement for appropriate behavior. • Present only the minimal amount of reinforcement necessary for inappropriate behavior; when possible, this would be none at all. • Just remember this rule of thumb: Maximize/Minimize

Summary • Problem behavior is often predictable and orderly • Specific sources of motivation and reinforcement can be identified via behavioral assessment • Problem behavior conforms to principles of the “matching law.” • Problem behavior goes away when the reinforcers are presented for free. • Problem behavior goes away when it is no longer reinforced. • New behavior can be shaped to replace problem behavior by using differential reinforcement. • These facts lead to a logical approach to behavioral intervention that is empirically based and confirmed as effective in the research literature. • Problem behavior is preventable.