Signs of Damage as Reinforcer - FIT ABA Materials: Eb Blakely
Download
Report
Transcript Signs of Damage as Reinforcer - FIT ABA Materials: Eb Blakely
CEU Event
Eb Blakely, Ph.D., BCBA-D
Download PowerPoint: www.fitaba.com
Signs of Damage: Skinner
From "Contingencies of Reinforcement"
Page 51: "The principle also holds for aggressive behavior. At a time when
men were often plundered and killed, by animals and other men, it was
important that any behavior which harmed or frightened predators should be
quickly learned and long sustained. Those who were most strongly
reinforced by evidences of damage to others should have been most likely to
survive."
Page 129: "A person who is at the moment aggressive is one who, among
other characteristics, shows a heightened probability of behaving verbally or
nonverbally in such a way that someone is damaged..."
Page 195: "Azrin, for example, has studied the stereotyped, mutually
aggressive behavior evoked when two organisms receive brief electric
shocks. But he and his associates have also demonstrated that the
opportunity to engage in such behavior functions as a reinforcer and, as
such, may be used to shape an indefinite number of "aggressive" operants
of arbitrary topographies. Evidence of damage to others may be reinforcing
for phylogenic reasons because it is associated with competitive survival.
Competition in the current environment may make it reinforcing for ontogenic
reasons."
Signs of Damage: Stimuli
What stimuli are involved?
Visual stimuli – blood, bruising,
scratches, “upset” expressions,
damage to property
Auditory stimuli – crying, screaming
Response-produced stimuli involving
body parts in attack – pressure on
teeth, pressure on hands/feet
Shock “elicited” fighting
Subjects: Pairs of rats
Procedure: Rats exposed to shock
Measure: # of episodes of fighting
Aggression was called “reflexive”
Results: Most shocks evoked fighting
Shock “elicited” biting of objects
Subjects: Rats
Procedure: Rats exposed to shock
Measure: # of episodes of biting of metal,
wood, or rubber targets
Results
Aggression Evoked by Reinf Schedules
Subjects: Pigeons
Procedure: Ss exposed to FR 50
Measure: # attacks to target pigeon
Results: Most attacks occurred during PRP
Results
What Kind of Target?
Subjects: Pigeons
Procedure: Ss exposed to FR 80-120
Measure: # attacks to target (Mirror, Liveprotected, Stuffed)
Biting is a Function of FR Size
Subjects: Squirrel monkeys
Procedure: Ss exposed to FR schedules of
food delivery (FR 50-200)
Measure: # bites of a rubber hose
Results: 1) Most biting occurred in PRP as
a function of ratio size 2) also occurred in
Ext
Results of FR Size
Results in Ext
Effort: FR vs MT
Subjects: Pigeons
Procedure: Ss exposed to FR and
yoked schedules of free food (MT =
matched time)
Measure: # attacks
Results
Opp to Aggress: A Reinforcer?
Subjects: Squirrel monkeys
Procedure: Chain pulls rubber ball to bite
Results: Presentation of ball
reinforced/maintained chain pulls
Results: Shock vs No Shock
Results: Reversal of Contingency
Opp to Aggress: A Reinforcer?
Subjects: Pigeons
Procedure: 1) FI schedule for food and 2) 2nd
key pecks access to a target pigeon
Results:
# key
pecks to
produce
target
Opp to Aggress: A reinforcer?
Subjects: Mice (handle with care!)
Note: Mice were bred for aggression
Procedure: Intruder mouse presented
after completion of FR 8 vs Ext
Results: The opportunity to aggress
functioned as a form of reinforcement
Results
Summary
Aversive stimuli will evoke aggression
Shock
Reinforcement offset
Work requirements
Heat
Strikes to body
The opportunity to aggress will function as a
reinforcer for behavior
Occurs when aversive stimuli are present, including
schedules of positive reinforcement
May occur in absence of such stimuli in some
members of species
Conclusions
Aggression evoked by aversive stimuli is not a
respondent
If operant, what reinforces it?
Signs of damage (cf Skinner): cowering, crying, blood,
running away
Pressure on body part used to attack (e.g., teeth, fists)
How do we talk about this?
Signs of damage and/or related stimuli may be naturally
reinforcing in some species, or some members of a
species
EO s may be aversive events and schedules of
reinforcement
We should address this in assessment and Tx
Implications
Standard Functional Analyses
Unclear results
But naturalistic observations suggested that attention was a factor, but
attention was given in loud, emotionally-charged bouts
David M. Richman and Louis P. Hagopian
Implications
Idiosyncratic Conditions in Functional Analysis
Exaggerated Attention: “dramatic reaction to Tim’s destructive behaviors
that included a high level of voice intonation, verbal phrases such as “I
can’t believe that you just did that,” and physical signs of displeasure
such as waving his/her hands frantically. “
Functional Analyses Results
Case #1 FA
Throwing items/tipping chairs increased
when mom reacted “frustrated” or
“aggravated” compared to neutral
reprimands.
We put a recording of “upset” mom on iPad
for him to access
Functional Analyses Results
Target behavior: Throwing & tipping chairs
Functional Analyses Results
Case #2 FA
Higher rates of problem behavior when
caregiver reacted “upset” than when
caregiver provided a neutral reprimand,
or during no attention conditions
He also seeks out other kids crying
He will grab lizards and tear in half
Case Study #3
Descriptive assessment information
Engages in SIB (arm scratching, and picking)
during free time that produces blood
Aggression is more likely in presence of
aversive stimuli (e.g., denied access to
items/activities, work requirements)
Looks for bruising after aggression
Property destruction when denied access – and
would carefully look at the broken item
Will mand for item to break!
Preference Assessment
Reinforcer Assessment
Conc FR 1 (sight of finger w/blood) Ext (sight of finger)
Program Design
Tx elements
Replacement skill:
Select alternatives when denied access
Waiting
Fade in work requirements
Mand for delay of reinforcer offset
Calendar of when events will occur
Extinction? Can signs of damage be withheld?
Wear long sleeves during sessions
Punishment – loss of items/activities/contingent
exercise
Program Design
Average % of Session Engaged in Tantrum
Contingent Exercise
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Implications for Tx and Assessment
Behavior Assessment
Preference assessments
Standard preference assessments with signs of damage stimuli
Preference assessments in presence of aversive stimuli Go
Interviews should address this Go
Go
Functional analyses with signs of damage
Cowering targets
“Angry” caregivers
Contingent property destruction
Objects to hit/bite (safely!)
Tx procedures
Antecedent manipulations
Replacement skills Go
Concurrent schedules of reinforcement for appropriate behavior
Reduction procedures Punishment?
Sample Program
Function: Signs of Damage
Antecedent Manipulations
Remove target - When sister hits Fred, separate
Remove target during work requirements - Keep sister
away from Fred when he is engaged in chores
Frequent physical games
Have potential targets do pairing
Wear long sleeves during sessions?
Acquisition Skills
Mands for physical activity
Select alternatives when denied access
Be willing to use large magnitude reinforcers
Waiting programs
Slowly increase wait time
Especially consider waiting in divided attention situations
Sample Program
Function: Signs of Damage
Acquisition Skills (continued)
Task completion
Slowly increase response requirements
Use large magnitude reinforcers
Consider VR instead of FR schedules
Reduction Procedures
Removal of targets
Extinction: Withhold damage if possible
Punishment?
Side effects! Punishment maybe an EO for further signs of
damage maintained aggression
Extensions
Unexplained phenomena
“Extinction-induced” aggression – is it
“reflexive?”
Extinction as EO for signs of damage and
other concomitant stimuli
Side effects of punishment: aggression!
Punishment stimuli as EO for signs of
damage and other concomitant stimuli
Aggression as a Built-in Reinforcer
Betta Splendens
Aggression as a Built-in Reinforcer
Round 1
The End