Functional Analyses
Figuring out the source of the problem, the problem,
and the resolution of the problem
Functional Analyses
 Has long been established in behavior analysis that, in
order to change behavior, one must understand the
 Antecedents of the situation
 The Behavior(s) that occur in that situation
 Consequences of the situation
 Hence Functional Analyses of behavior were created
Functional analyses
 Initially developed by Brian Iwata
 Investigates potential maintaining consequences for
problem behavior
 Initially for kids, Self-injurious behavior
 Now many organisms (e.g., Farmer-Dougan, in press, for
captive wild animals!).
 Involves
 Direct observation and repeated measurement
 Across several situations that attempt to mimic possible
maintaining situations
Functional Analysis
 Must get baseline assessments first: examine
environment before begin testing
 Assess validity by comparing rates of behavior across
the different settings/conditions
 Repeat until 1 or more settings found to elicit target
behavior at highest and most steady rate
In Humans: Typically 4 Settings
 Alone: client in barren room (no obvious reinforcers)
 See if behavior is self-reinforcing or self-maintaining
 E.g., self stim behavior (excessive licking)
 Attention:
 Provide client with attention only when client exhibits
behavior
 E.g., child hits head, you run and get him to stop
 Can look at attention vs. access to food or tangible
Four Settings
 Demand:
 client is asked to engage in contingent activity
 Demands made on client to engage in behavior
 E.g., doing math problems, obeying commands
 See if behavior increases (to escape demands)
 Play: Typically control procedure
 Client allowed to play in room
 No contingencies or demands
 Attention given for any behavior
Let’s apply this to dogs
 #1 reason dogs are returned to shelter:
 behavioral problems!
 About 26%
 Previous owners not always complete/honest about why dog is
being returned
 Over emphasize “bad” behavior
 Under emphasize “bad” behavior
 How can shelter/rescue workers develop assessment
system that
 Doesn’t involve prior owner
 Doesn’t involve long and complicated process or questionnaires
 Is quick, effective and efficient
Dorsey, et al.,
Functional Analysis with dogs
 Recruited dogs who jumped on people
 No aggression
 Young adult dogs
 No known health issues
 Conducted both a
 Questionnaire
 Assessment phase
Dorsey et al.’s questionnaire
Assessment
 Each of 4 conditions presented for 5 min (2 min ITI)
 Play, ignore, tangible, demand, attention
 All 5 presentations = 1 cycle; no more than 2 cycles/day
 Continued with cycles until problem area was identified
Assessment Conditions

Began with walking in door/greeting (SD)

Ignore:
 entered room but
 gave no attention or eye contact to dog

Attention:
 Entered room;

only gave attention when dog jumped up;
 petted, hugged dog for 20 sec after each jump

Play: dog given squeaky toy
 Dog allowed to play with toy
 Attention given for 5 of every 20 seconds (noncontingent)
Assessment Conditions
 Demand
 entered room
 Gave commands that were within the dogs’ behavioral
repertoire
 Food require for compliance with command
 Repeated commands until complied
 Tangible
 Entered room;
 Experimenter held high-demand toy
 Tried to elicit jumping by holding toy up high (yes,
reinforced jumping)
Treatment Phase
 Once identified sustaining variable, used this as part of
treatment
 Treatment based on maintaining variable of the behavior,
not on the function of the behavior
 Why the dog jumped up
 Not that the dog hurt you or pushed you over
Treatment Types
 Attention:
 Gave no attention for 20 sec
 If dog did not jump up for 20 sec, lots of attention
 If dog did jump up; timer restarted
 Demand:
 If dog jumped up during command, was ignored
 Command was carried through anyway
 Attention ONLY for compliance
 Tangible
 No toy unless no jumping for 20 sec
 Again, timer restarted if jumped
Results
 Note that used nonparmetric stats
 Used when have small N or lopsided data
 Looked to see what drove jumping!
 Noted that the assessment matched survey
Results of treatment:
 Was successful!
Okay, so…..
 Functional analysis works
 But, hard for general shelter workers to use
 Not want to conduct these ‘phases’ or cycles
 Not want to have to do data analysis
 Alternative? A canned method
 Emily Weiss of the ASPCA
 PhD in animal behavior; now is director of behavior for ASPCA
 Uses knowledge of many species to develop intervention
programs for shelters
Okay, so…..
 Developed a “canned” method of functional analysis
 Assess behavior of animal (using a system similar to 4
functional analysis situaitons) and determine “type” of dog
 Then: match the dog to the new owner in terms of behavioral
needs
 Developed the Meet Your Match program
 Both a functional analysis AND a behavioral assessment
program
 Two components
 SAFER
 Canine-ality
The MYM SAFER
 Examines behavior in several domains
 Look
 (touch) sensitivity
 Tag (play)
 Squeeze (again touch sensitivity)
 Food behavior (in dish)
 Toy behavior (reinforcer assessment)
 Dog to dog behavior
The MYM Canine-ality
 Examines behavior across several domains:
 Left alone
 Greeting
 Crate
 Play
 Food motivation
 Manners
 Sum score to get activity level
 Then assess motivation
 Social (all people)
 Independent (not attached to people)
 One person dog
 Includes treatment plans for different problem areas and levels of
scoring
Is the Canine-ality
a functional assessment?
 Yes
 Look at domains:
 Alone/ignore
 Attention
 Demand
 Play
 Tangible and food
 Is a quick and dirty way to conduct a FA
 DOES include treatment plans, although these are often ignored by
shelters….which means they are missing the point of the program!
Problems with the Canine-ality?
 Should you use when the dog first arrives at shelter or class? Why
or why not?
 Could environment alter the results?
 Could who gives the assessment alter the results?
 Need to use with care and understand its limits
 For shelters/rescues ALSO use the adopter survey
 Adopter survey looks at what kind of activity level/expectations the
family might have.
 MYM = meet your match
 Attempt to match right dog to right family
 Works very well when used appropriately!
Functional Analysis Assessment
 This assessment uses 3-min segments or intervals
 Intervals include: ignore, attention, play, demand, tangible
 Ignore: approach dog but give no attention or eye
contact to dog for three minutes.
 Count the number of times the dog attempts to get your attention
via vocalizations, jumps up, touching you, etc.
 Attention: Only give attention when dog jumps up; pet
and/or hug dog for 10 sec after each jump
 Count number of jumps up for the three minutes.
 Stop the watch during the 5 sec reinforcement- the three minute
period should just be the time the dog can jump up
Functional Analysis Assessment
3-min segments
 Play: give dog squeaky toy, allow dog to play with toy, give
attention for 5 seconds every 20 seconds (noncontingent)
 Count the number of times the dog responds to your attention
 Stop the watch during the 5 sec reinforcement time
 Demand: Give cues that are within the dogs’ behavioral
repertoire
 Food require for compliance with the cue
 Repeated each cue until the behavior is completed within 3 seconds of
the cue.
 Count the number of times the cue is given for each behavior.
 Tangible: hold high-demand toy, try to elicit jumping by
holding toy up high
 Count the number of times the dog jumps up within three minutes.
Data Collection:
Task:
Number of
1. Ignore
Attention attempts:
2. Attention
Jumps up:
3. Play
Attention attempts:
4. Demand
Cues given:
Sit
Down
Touch
5. Tangible (toy)
Jumps up
Count:
Data Collection:
Look to see where the highest amount of responses occurs:
• Ignore:
• Specify which behavior occurs as means of attention when ignored
• High number = human attention is strong reinforcer
• Low number = humans are not strong reinforcer
• Contingent Attention:
• High number of responses: Dog is responding to your reinforcement
of inappropriate behavior; human attention is strong reinforcer
• Low number of jumps: Human attention is not strong reinforcer
• Play:
• High number of attempts for attention; human is stronger reinforcer
• Low number of attempts for attention: toy is stronger reinforcer
Data Collection:
Look to see where the highest amount of responses occurs:
• Demand:
• High number of cues given = not responding to your
cues; C/T and attention not high reinforcer in demand
settings
• Low number of cues given = C/T and attention is
strong reinforcer
• Tangible:
• High number of jump attempts: Toy is strong
reinforcer
• Low number of jump attempts: Toy is not strong
reinforcer