1 / 40

CEU Event

CEU Event. Eb Blakely, Ph.D., BCBA-D Download PowerPoint: www.fitaba.com. Signs of Damage: Skinner. From "Contingencies of Reinforcement"

tala
Download Presentation

CEU Event

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CEU Event Eb Blakely, Ph.D., BCBA-D Download PowerPoint: www.fitaba.com

  2. 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."

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Shock “elicited” biting of objects • Subjects: Rats • Procedure: Rats exposed to shock • Measure: # of episodes of biting of metal, wood, or rubber targets

  6. Results

  7. Aggression Evoked by Reinf Schedules • Subjects: Pigeons • Procedure: Ss exposed to FR 50 • Measure: # attacks to target pigeon • Results: Most attacks occurred during PRP

  8. Results

  9. What Kind of Target? • Subjects: Pigeons • Procedure: Ss exposed to FR 80-120 • Measure: # attacks to target (Mirror, Live- protected, Stuffed)

  10. 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

  11. Results of FR Size

  12. Results in Ext

  13. Effort: FR vs MT Subjects: Pigeons Procedure: Ss exposed to FR and yoked schedules of free food (MT = matched time) Measure: # attacks

  14. Results

  15. Opp to Aggress: A Reinforcer? • Subjects: Squirrel monkeys • Procedure: Chain pulls  rubber ball to bite • Results: Presentation of ball reinforced/maintained chain pulls

  16. Results: Shock vs No Shock

  17. Results: Reversal of Contingency

  18. Opp to Aggress: A Reinforcer? • Subjects: Pigeons • Procedure: 1) FI schedule for food and 2) 2nd key pecks  access to a target pigeon

  19. Results:# key pecks to produce target

  20. 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

  21. Results

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. 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. “

  26. 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

  27. Target behavior: Throwing & tipping chairs Functional Analyses Results

  28. 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

  29. 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!

  30. Preference Assessment

  31. Conc FR 1 (sight of finger w/blood) Ext (sight of finger) Reinforcer Assessment

  32. 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

  33. Program Design

  34. Go Implications for Tx and Assessment Go Go • Behavior Assessment • Preference assessments • Standard preference assessments with signs of damage stimuli • Preference assessments in presence of aversive stimuli • Interviews should address this • Functional analyses with signs of damage • Cowering targets • “Angry” caregivers • Contingent property destruction • Objects to hit/bite (safely!) • Tx procedures • Antecedent manipulations • Replacement skills • Concurrent schedules of reinforcement for appropriate behavior • Reduction procedures Go Punishment?

  35. Function: Signs of Damage Sample Program • 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

  36. Function: Signs of Damage Sample Program • 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

  37. 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

  38. Aggression as a Built-in Reinforcer • Betta Splendens

  39. Aggression as a Built-in Reinforcer Round 1

  40. The End

More Related