ERIC EJ750840: A Paradoxical Effect of Presession Attention on Stereotypy: Antecedent Attention as an Establishing, Not an Abolishing, Operation

2006·0.11 MB·English

by  ERIC

JOURNALOFAPPLIEDBEHAVIORANALYSIS 2006, 39, 381–384 NUMBER3 (FALL2006)
A PARADOXICAL EFFECT OF PRESESSION ATTENTION ON
STEREOTYPY: ANTECEDENT ATTENTION AS AN ESTABLISHING,
NOT AN ABOLISHING, OPERATION
CHRISTINA F. ROANTREE AND CRAIG H. KENNEDY
VANDERBILTUNIVERSITY
Previous studies have shown that presession attention for problem behavior can serve as an
abolishingoperationwhenattentionfunctionsasapositivereinforcer.Inthecurrentstudy,we
showthatthestereotypyofachildwithseveredisabilitieswasundifferentiatedduringstandard
analoguefunctionalanalysisconditions.However,whennoncontingentpresessionattentionwas
provided, stereotypy occurred for social attention as a positive reinforcer, suggesting that the
antecedent manipulationfunctioned asanestablishing operation.
DESCRIPTORS: stereotypy, functional analysis, positive reinforcement, establishing
operation,motivating operation, presession attention
_______________________________________________________________________________
Motivating operations (MOs) change the nopresessionattention.Suchanalysesshowthat
probability of behavior under the control of presession attention can serve as an AO for
reinforcement contingencies by altering the attention as a positive reinforcer. However, at
valueofreinforcingstimuli(Laraway,Snycerski, least one well-known behavioral technique,
Michael, & Poling, 2003). When an MO priming,suggeststhatpresessionattentioncould
functionsasanestablishingoperation(EO),the function as an EO, rather than an AO, thus
reinforcing effects of a stimulus are increased. increasing the probability of responding rather
When an MO functions as an abolishing than decreasing it. Priming involves the non-
operation (AO), the reinforcing effects of contingent presentation of a stimulus prior to
a stimulus are decreased. Correspondingly, its use as a contingent reinforcer and can serve
EOs serve to increase the probability of as an EO for the reinforcing effects of the
responding, whereas AOs decrease response stimulus (Catania, 1998).
probability. In the current analysis, we studied whether
Several studies have analyzed the motivation presession attention could function as an EO
ofproblembehaviorintermsofAOs(e.g.,Berg rather than an AO. Initially, the stereotypy of
et al., 2000; McComas, Thompson, & John- a child with severe disabilities was analyzed
son, 2003; O’Reilly, 1999). For example, using standard analogue functional analysis
McComas et al. showed that presession atten- conditions (i.e., alone, attention, control, and
tion reduced the probability of problem demand). We then provided noncontingent
behavior maintained by positive reinforcement presession attention under the same analogue
intheformofattentionrelativetosessionswith conditions to see if attention as a positive
reinforcer increased in value via increases in
This report is based on a thesis submitted by the first
response probability. We then withdrew the
author to Vanderbilt University in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the MEd degree. We thank Maria presession attention and observed whether
Couppis, Nea Houchins-Jua´rez, Pablo Jua´rez, Michael behavioral patterns reversed to baseline levels.
May, and Jill Parks for their comments on a previous
versionofthe manuscript.
Address correspondence to Craig H. Kennedy, De-
METHOD
partment of Special Education, Box 328 – Peabody,
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37203 (e-
Participant, behavior, and setting. The child
mail:[email protected]).
doi:10.1901/jaba.2006.97-05 was a 10-year-old boy with severe mental
381
382 CHRISTINA F. ROANTREE and CRAIG H. KENNEDY
retardation. He was nonverbal, but used several sion attention. Prior to the start of the no-
gestures and vocalizations to communicate his presession-attention sessions, there was no
wantsandneeds.Thestereotypicalresponsewas interaction with the participant for 20 min. In
a full-body flex that involved quickly raising his noncontingent presession attention, the child
hands above his head while simultaneously was provided with 20 min of attention before
extending his legs. All sessions were conducted the analogue functional analysis sessions began.
in a room (4 m by 4 m) with several tables and Noncontingent attention consisted of positive
chairs. verbal comments delivered every 30 s. All
Measurementandinterobserveragreement.Ses- presession manipulations occurred in the same
sions were videotaped, and the stereotypical roomasthefunctionalanalysis.Eachpresession
response was scored as frequency counts using manipulation was followed by a daily block of
a paper-and-pencil system. Two observers in- four functional analysis conditions as described
dependently scored 50% of sessions. Interob- previously. The order of the functional analysis
server agreement was measured by dividing the conditions was randomly determined for the
smaller value by the larger and multiplying by first phase and was repeated in each subsequent
100%. Mean interobserver agreement was 88% phase to assess possible sequence effects.
(range, 75% to 100%).
Designandprocedure.AcombinedA-B-Aand RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
multielementdesignwasused(Kennedy,2005).
An initial functional behavioral assessment
The multielementaspect of the design was used
using interviews and observations resulted in an
to study stereotypy during an analogue func-
inconclusive outcome, but some informants
tional analysis involving alone, attention, con-
noted that the child enjoyed attention. We
trol, and demand conditions (see Iwata, Slifer,
conducted an initial analogue functional anal-
Dorsey, Bauman, & Richman, 1982/1994).
ysis to test the hypothesis that attention was
One of each type of condition was conducted
a positive reinforcer (see Figure 1). However,
once per day. Each condition was 5 min in
during the initial analysis with no presession
length, with a 5-min break between conditions.
attention, an undifferentiated pattern of stereo-
Allcontingenteventswereforstereotypy.Inthe
typy was observed. To further test the hypoth-
alone condition, the participant was in a room
esis that attention was a positive reinforcer, we
without any activities or social stimulation, and
optedtouseprimingofthisbehavioralfunction
no consequences were delivered. During the
by providing noncontingent attention prior to
attention condition, social interaction was
functional analysis sessions. When noncontin-
withheld until stereotypy was emitted, which
gent presession attention was delivered during
occasioned 5 s of attention. In the control
the second phase, elevated levels of stereotypy
condition, the child had access to attention for occurred during the attention condition, but
the absence of stereotypy and noncontingent low levels of stereotypy were observed in other
access to preferred activities. In the demand conditions.Areturntotheinitialno-presession-
condition, instructional requests were made attention procedure again resulted in an un-
every 10 s. If the task was completed, the child differentiated pattern of responding, suggesting
was praised. If stereotypy occurred, the re- that the behavior was sensitive to attention as
searcher removed the materials and did not a positive reinforcer, but that an EO was
present them again until stereotypy was absent required.
for 30 s. Our data suggest that presession attention
The A-B-A aspect of the design compared no acted as an EO, increasing the value of social
presession attention with noncontingent preses- attention as a positive reinforcer during the
ATTENTION AND MOTIVATING OPERATIONS 383
Figure1. Frequencyofstereotypy(yaxis)andindividualanaloguefunctionalanalysissessions(xaxis).Conditions
includedalone,attention,control,anddemand.DuringtheAphasesnopresessionattentionwasprovided,andduring
PhaseBnoncontingent presession attention was provided.
subsequent functional analysis. In previous the addition of noncontingent presession atten-
studies of MO effects on problem behavior, tion. It is possible that presession attention
presessionattentionhasbeenshowntofunction actedtoprimeattentionasapositivereinforcer,
as an AO but not an EO. Therefore, one thereforeinducingamoredifferentiatedpattern
implication of our findings is that individuals than seen during the no-presession-attention
whoconductfunctionalassessments ofproblem phases. Given that the undifferentiated pattern
behavior need to consider the possibility that was reestablished with the withdrawal of
presessioneventscanserveaseitherAOsorEOs presession attention, the effects were probably
for attention. It is possible that a curvilinear notduetochangesinthediscriminativecontrol
relation exists between exposure to presession exerted by the functional analysis conditions,
attention and its effect as either an EO or AO, but rather to an alteration in the reinforcing
with EO effects occurring initially and AO values of the various conditions via the EO
effects emerging over time. Thus, presession being analyzed. Whether similar results can be
manipulations may function as an EO or AO, obtained by manipulating other presession
depending on the temporal relation between variables and their potential effects on re-
presession exposure and the functional analysis. inforcers remains to be analyzed.
However, such a functional relation remains to Our findings also contribute to an emerging
be empirically demonstrated. understanding of stereotypy as a complexly
The data also suggest that when researchers determined behavior. Stereotypy has often been
are presented with undifferentiated patterns of presumed to function primarily as sensory
behavior during initial functional analyses, reinforcement (i.e., nonsocial positive or nega-
manipulation of presession attention may assist tive reinforcement; Lovaas, Newsom, & Hick-
in identifying possible functions of problem man, 1987). However, the results of several
behaviorrelatingtosocialattentionasapositive recent investigations (e.g., Kennedy, Meyer,
reinforcer. Our data showed that an initially Knowles, & Shukla, 2000) suggest that stereo-
undifferentiated pattern of stereotypy was typy can also function to occasion, maintain,
changed to a highly differentiated pattern by avoid, or escape socially mediated reinforcers.
384 CHRISTINA F. ROANTREE and CRAIG H. KENNEDY
Hence, researchers need to carefully assess the Kennedy,C.H.,Meyer,K.A.,Knowles,T.,&Shukla,S.
(2000). Analyzing the multiple functions of stereo-
potential functions of stereotypy prior to
typical behavior for students with autism: Implica-
developing behavioral intervention plans. In
tionsforassessmentandtreatment.JournalofApplied
addition,ourfindingssuggestthatMOsneedto BehaviorAnalysis,33,559–571.
be considered in the analysis of stereotypy as Laraway, S., Snycerski, S., Michael, J., & Poling, A.
(2003). Motivating operations and terms to describe
functional variables in their own right.
them: Some further refinements. Journal of Applied
BehaviorAnalysis,36,407–414.
Lovaas, I., Newsom, C., & Hickman, C. (1987). Self-
REFERENCES
stimulatory behavior and perceptual reinforcement.
Berg, W. K., Peck, S., Wacker, D. P., Harding, J., JournalofAppliedBehavior Analysis, 20,45–68.
McComas,J.,Richman,D.,etal.(2000).Theeffects McComas, J. J., Thompson, A., & Johnson, L. (2003).
of presession exposure to attention on the results of The effects of presession attention on problem
assessments of attention as a reinforcer. Journal of behavior maintained by different reinforcers. Journal
AppliedBehavior Analysis, 33,463–477. ofAppliedBehavior Analysis, 36,297–307.
Catania, A. C. (1998). Learning (4th ed.). Upper Saddle O’Reilly, M. F. (1999). Effects of presession attention
River,NJ:Prentice Hall. on the frequency of attention-maintained behav-
Iwata,B.A.,Dorsey,M.F.,Slifer,K.J.,Bauman,K.E.,& ior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 371–
Richman,G.S.(1994).Towardafunctionalanalysis 374.
ofself-injury.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,27,
197–209.(ReprintedfromAnalysisandInterventionin
DevelopmentalDisabilities,2,3–20,1982) Received July 25,2005
Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case design for educational Final acceptance February 7,2006
research.Boston: Allyn& Bacon. Action Editor,Jennifer J. McComas