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