Functional Analysis Procedures & Results

Comparison of Positive and Negative Reinforcement for Compliance

• Research has shown that positive reinforcement can treat problem behavior maintained by escape.
• This study compared functional (escape) and nonfunctional (edible) reinforcers in treating escape-maintained problem behavior in 5 subjects, without escape extinction.
• Positive reinforcement for compliance effectively treated escape-maintained problem behavior for all 5 subjects.
• Escape for compliance was ineffective for 3 of the 5 subjects.

Functional Analysis Methodology

• Functional analysis has led to more function-based treatments, which weaken the relation between problem behavior and its consequences, and strengthen the relation between appropriate behavior and consequences.
• Function-based treatments have been developed for socially and automatically reinforced behavior.
• Treatments often use the reinforcer that maintained problem behavior to strengthen appropriate behavior, like communication or compliance.
• Escape-maintained problem behavior is commonly treated with noncontingent escape (NCE), differential reinforcement (DR), or escape extinction (EE).
• Escape extinction (EE) needs to be used with other procedures.
• Extinction is sometimes necessary for maximally effective escape behavior treatment.
• Escape extinction (EE) has limitations, including the potential need for physical guidance, which can be undesirable, dangerous, or impossible in certain cases.
• Researchers have sought alternative interventions not requiring physical interaction.

Competing Alternative Behavior

• The treatment of behavior maintained by escape uniquely has an inherent competing alternative behavior (compliance), which might covary with problem behavior.
• Contingent delivery of positive reinforcers for compliance and noncontingent delivery of positive reinforcers can effectively decrease problem behavior and increase compliance.
• Lalli and Casey (1996) found problem behavior was likely influenced by multiple variables (e.g., introduction of a task and removal of appetitive activities) for a young boy with developmental delays.
• The treatment was most effective when experimenters delivered praise, toys, a break from demands, and social interaction contingent on compliance.
• This suggests that positive reinforcement for compliance might produce shifts in response allocation, despite continued escape availability for problem behavior.
• Research has evaluated conditions where reinforcing compliance treats negatively reinforced problem behavior while maintaining the contingency for problem behavior.
• Piazza et al. (1997) compared effects of positive and negative reinforcement with and without extinction on escape-maintained behavior.
• Introduction of a break contingent on compliance increased compliance and decreased problem behavior for one participant.
• Positive reinforcement contingent on compliance resulted in more immediate suppression of problem behavior for that subject and a second subject.
• Extinction for problem behavior was necessary to produce high compliance and low problem behavior for the third participant.
• Piazza et al. demonstrated that adding a tangible item during escape was more effective than escape if EE was excluded.
• Lalli et al. (1999) and Carter (2010) directly compared contingent positive and negative reinforcement in treating escape behavior without EE.
• Experimenters taught individuals with escape-maintained problem behavior to comply with instructions by providing an edible item or a break contingent on compliance.
• Across subjects, positive reinforcement was more effective at decreasing problem behavior and increasing compliance with task demands compared to negative reinforcement.
• Some questions remain unanswered such as demand every 30s rather than continuously or 10-s interprompt intervals.

Positive Reinforcement Use

• Using positive reinforcement to treat problem behavior maintained by escape offers potential benefits.
• Delivering positive reinforcers for appropriate behavior might be less disruptive to classroom or daily routines compared to providing escape.
• Teachers or practitioners might prefer to deliver a small edible item or token for compliance rather than a break.
• Using positive reinforcers would influence the establishing operation for escape during aversive stimulation, and if positive reinforcers attenuate the aversive qualities of the demand context, escape behavior might be less likely.
• Research has demonstrated the efficacy of positive reinforcement for treating escape-maintained problem behavior without EE and holds great promise for application.

Subjects and Setting

• The study included five individuals (four boys and one girl, aged 4 to 8 years) referred to the Behavior Analysis Research Clinic (University of Florida) or local schools, whose functional analyses showed problem behavior maintained by escape.
• Subjects included Braiden, Ali, Nicholas, Stephen, and Milo.
• Sessions were conducted in a small pullout room at a local school or in a session room at a clinic, equipped with a one-way observation panel.

Response Definitions and Interobserver Agreement

• Operational definitions for each subject's problem behavior are presented in Table 1, including Braiden, Ali, Nicholas, Stephen, and Milo engaging in aggression (e.g., hitting, kicking, biting, and scratching) and spitting.
• Compliance was scored if the subject correctly responded following either a vocal or model-plus-vocal prompt.
• Interobserver agreement was scored using a proportional agreement method.
• Agreement data were collected across sessions with averaged percentages for Braiden, Ali, Nicolas, Stephen, and Milo.

Functional Analysis

• Functional analysis was conducted before treatment comparison to assess problem behavior function on each of the five subjects, lasting 5 minutes.
• Not all subjects were exposed to all conditions. Examples included no interaction, attention, tangible, toy play, and demand.
• During attention condition, The subject had continuous access to a moderately preferred tangible item.
• Contingent on any instance of problem behavior, the experimenter provided attention in the form of a brief reprimand.
• Before starting tangible sessions, subjects briefly interacted with leisure or edible items.

Instructional and Treatment Comparison

• Different demands were chosen for each subject such as gross-motor instructions and imitation instructions.
• A three-step least-to-most prompting procedure was utilized in instruction.
• The functional analysis and treatment-comparison data was interpreted using standard visual-inspection procedures.
• Subjects whose problem behavior was maintained at least partly by negative reinforcement in the form of escape were able to participate in the treatment comparison.
• Two treatments were compared using a reversal design, included baseline, positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement.

Positive and Negative Reinforcement

• The baseline phase was similar to the demand condition of the functional analyses, but we incorporated a 3s intertrial interval (ITI) between instructions similar to the ITI in each condition
• New instruction was issued after 3s regardless of whether the subject had consumed a previously delivered edible item previously
• In negative reinforcement, subject's received thinned of the schedule of reinforcement from a fixed-ratio (FR) 1 to a variable-ratio (VR) 10.
• In the negative reinforcement condition, the experimenter delivered a 30-s break after compliance.

Results Displayed

• Problem behavior was maintained by negative reinforcement in the form of escape from instructions and problem behavior remained low/zero in positive reinforcement.
• Problem behavior remained at lower levels in the first phase of negative reinforcement but remained in baseline levels in the second phase and the treatment conditions.
• Problem behavior was reduced during compliance in the positive reinforcement versus the negative reinforcement.
• Levels of problem behavior were high, remained low/zero in positive reinforcement and at baseline level in the negative reinforcement
• Levels of problems were variable but decreased during both positive and negative reinforcement with larger reductions in postive reinforcement.

Discussion

• Positive reinforcement of edible items produced decreases in problem behavior with increases in compliance.
• Suppressed problem behavior for every subject was achieved using edible reinforcers without extinction such as access to tangible items, leading to high levels of compliance.
• Delivery of edible items might function as an abolishing operation where reinforcers were competed for between response cases such as compliance.
• The current study compared the two treatments with rapidly alternating conditions in the design opposed to the traditional reversal study.
• Problem behavior was shown to be maintained in tangible item in positive reinforcement

Results of Data

• The data has several implications for clinicians to suppress problem behavior for every subject using edible reinforcers, where EE is not possible.
• The procedures in the study were relatively easy to facilitate, and increasing instruction to positive outcomes and rapid acquisition.
• Results included evidence of problem behavior maintained by positive reinforcement in access to tangible items due to positive reinforcers.
• One participant had very low levels of compliance where language interference was apparent, but by the second treatment comparison, acquisition was present.
• Limitations include the session's limited duration.
• The study's results supported the conclusion that positive reinforcement for achieving compliance yielded a display of increased compliance.

This lesson covers functional analysis conditions, including attention, tangible, and no-interaction. It also includes a study on compliance rates during baseline, positive reinforcement, and problem behavior analysis.