Post on 17-Jan-2016
Task as Reinforcer: A Reactive Alternative to Escape Extinction
Steve Ward, MA, BCBAWhole Child Consulting, LLC
www.wholechildconsulting.comhttp://www.facebook.com/
wholechildconsulting
Escape behavior is a problem
• Escape/avoidance is the most common function of SIB (38.1%) (Iwata, et al, 1994)
• Students of all types postpone work, and some have devised elaborate or intense escape/avoidance routines
• For students learning in a group format, the more they avoid, the further behind they become, the more they need to avoid
Some Proactive measures
• Condition tasks as reinforcers• Frequent reinforcement• Demand fading• Errorless teaching (*sometimes the opposite
of helpful)• Curricular revision• Visual schedules
Usually more effective when combined with escape extinction
• Escape extinction has been used effectively as a treatment component (e.g., combined with demand fading) (Mason & Iwata, 1990; Pace, Iwata, Cowdery, Andree, & McIntyre, 1993; Steege, Wacker, Berg, Cigrand, & Cooper, 1989)
• This is usually* true, except when escape extinction causes more problems than it solves (e.g., Selina)
Escape extinction can have negative side effects
• Aggression, increased frequency and intensity of target behavior (Goh & Iwata, 1994; Lerman, Iwata, & Wallace, 1999)
• Condition teacher and/or activities as aversives
What EXACTLY does escape extinction look like?
• “Sit there until you’re finished”• Nag (repeated verbal SD’s)• Hand-over-hand
• How long, how often, contingent upon what behaviors, how much feedback?
• There are several variable dimensions in need of exploration
You’ll remember, of course, what Jack Michael (1993) said about
reinforcement as a “dynamic process”
• Neither reinforcement nor punishment are “static”. We have to consider the post-behavior context relative to the pre-behavior context.
This suggests at least 2 broad options
• Make the “post” that much better or make the “pre” that much worse. When things are going pretty well, we focus primarily upon making the world better after cooperation. When the student is non-cooperative, we shouldn’t look for ways to make the world better if he will cooperate or remind him what he “is working for”, but we need to consider what things are contingent upon cooperation.
Pre-cooperation conditions: Continuum of intrusion
Hand-over-hand escape extinction
Contained within work room, verbal and gestural reminders, but no HOH
Contained within work area. No reminders* to cooperate.
Allowed to leave work area, no reminders to return to work. 1-3 potential reinforcers withheld.
Positive attention provided to cooperative peers (contingent attention)
(e.g., Iwata, Pace, Kalsher, Cowdery & Cataldo, 1990)
Piazza, Moes, and Fisher (1996)
Current study- Ward, Parker, Grimes, & Perdikaris,(2016?)
(e.g., “Baby Bunny Ribbon Time out”, The Tough Kid Handbook and Schramm’s “7 steps”)
(e.g., Madsen, Becker, & Thomas, 1968)
Most intrusive
Least intrusive
Advantages of wait outs?• Wait outs can usually be implemented without
physical contact, decreasing the possibility of aggression
• It can be difficult to clearly distinguish pure escape/avoidance from behavior also maintained by attention. “Wait outs” make attention* contingent upon readiness.
• For those who don’t like attention, the procedure can help to condition attention as a reinforcer, removed from the “nag” context and put into the “moving forward” context.
Work materials available
Works well
Doesn’t
work well (active or passive)
“That’s not ready” and remove
materials* and limit access to rfs.
Calms/focuses for at
least 5 seconds
“Ready?”, while offering work materials
Confirms readiness
Not ready
So, we’re following inappropriate escape behaviors with escape?
It works
• Study 1-3 students new to a special needs clinic. Wait outs are the only reactive measure.
• Study 2-multiple baseline across stressors• Study 3-wait outs used to treat “passive
resistance” for 2 activities with 1 student, in a multiple baseline.
Gathering data (these are actual data from one student)Date Number of rejections Total Duration # of daily episodes
1/14 0:00:15 3
1/14 0:00:40
1/14 0:02:02
1/15 3 0:03:17 2
1/15 0:00:29
1/16 1 0:12:45 2
1/16 0:05:36
1/20 0:00:05 3
1/20 0:01:00
1/20 0:01:23
1/21 1 0:01:59 1
1/22 NA 0
1/27 0:00:05 1
1/28 NA 0
Those data are graphed for Drew
1/14/1
5
1/15/1
5
1/16/1
5
1/17/1
5
1/18/1
5
1/19/1
5
1/20/1
5
1/21/1
5
1/22/1
5
1/23/1
5
1/24/1
5
1/25/1
5
1/26/1
5
1/27/1
5
1/28/1
5
1/29/1
5
1/30/1
5
1/31/1
5
2/1/1
5
2/2/1
5
2/3/1
50
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
FrequencyDuration
Coun
t and
dur
ation
Days
And for JackCo
unt a
nd m
inut
es
Days
4/13/1
5
4/14/1
5
4/15/1
5
4/16/1
5
4/17/1
5
4/18/1
5
4/19/1
5
4/20/1
5
4/21/1
5
4/22/1
5
4/23/1
5
4/24/1
5
4/25/1
5
4/26/1
5
4/27/1
5
4/28/1
5
4/29/1
5
4/30/1
5
5/1/1
5
5/2/1
5
5/3/1
5
5/4/1
5
5/5/1
5
5/6/1
5
5/7/1
5
5/8/1
5
5/9/1
5
5/10/1
5
5/11/1
5
5/12/1
50
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
frequencyduration
And for AdiCo
unt a
nd m
inut
es
Days
4/13/1
5
4/14/1
5
4/15/1
5
4/16/1
5
4/17/1
5
4/18/1
5
4/19/1
5
4/20/1
5
4/21/1
5
4/22/1
5
4/23/1
5
4/24/1
5
4/25/1
5
4/26/1
5
4/27/1
50
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
frequencyduration
1 2 30%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
1 2 30%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
1 2 30%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Appr
opria
te to
lera
nce
BL
Wait outs
sessions
Study 3-treating passive resistance• .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 60
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1Baseline RD Colors
WO for missing transfers
Baseline RD People WO for missing transfers
sessions
Potential benefits in comparison to escape extinction
• Less confrontational• CMO-R becomes conditioned rf (opportunity to
move forward). *This is a step towards self-management and the efficacy of delayed consequences.
• Especially for less-disruptive students, wait outs are much more practical than escape extinction in classroom environments
• Social validity
Common errors • Failing to use positioning to clarify
communication• Representing work without asking whether
“ready?” (same as “nag” procedure)• **Remember that waiting only works if the
“pre” is less valuable than the “post”
SwimmingDoesn’t get
out for work
Wait out with him in pool?
Limitations
• The more a student is truly into self-stimulatory behavior, the harder “wait outs” are to use effectively (requires frequent blocking of self-stimulatory behavior)