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)