On the relation between object manipulation and stereotypic self-injurious behavior.

Results from a number of studies have shown an inverse relationship between stereotypic behavior and object manipulation. The purposes of this study were to determine whether techniques similar to those used previously (prompting and reinforcement) would be effective in increasing object manipulation under both prompted and unprompted conditions, and to ascertain whether increases in object manipulation would result in decreases in stereotypic self-injurious behavior (SIB). Two individuals with developmental disabilities who engaged in SIB maintained by automatic reinforcement participated. Results showed that object manipulation increased from baseline levels when experimenters prompted participants to manipulate leisure items, but that object manipulation was not maintained under unprompted conditions, and rates of SIB stayed within baseline levels. We then attempted to increase object manipulation further by (a) reinforcing object manipulation, (b) blocking SIB while reinforcing manipulation, and (c) preventing SIB by applying protective equipment while reinforcing object manipulation. Reinforcing object manipulation alone did not affect levels of object manipulation. Blocking effectively reduced attempts to engage in SIB for 1 participant but produced no increase in object manipulation. When the 2nd participant was prevented from engaging in SIB through the use of protective equipment, rates of object manipulation increased dramatically but were not maintained when the equipment was removed. These results suggest that stimulation derived from object manipulation, even when supplemented with arbitrary reinforcement, may not compete with stimulation produced by stereotypic SIB; therefore, direct interventions to reduce SIB are required.

[1]  B. Iwata,et al.  TOWARD A FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF SELF‐INJURY , 1994 .

[2]  B. Iwata,et al.  Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. , 1985, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[3]  R. G. Smith,et al.  An analysis of reinforcer substitutability using object manipulation and self-injury as competing responses. , 1997, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[4]  G. Berkson,et al.  Stereotyped movements of mental defectives. II. Effects of novel objects. , 1963, American journal of mental deficiency.

[5]  R. Koegel,et al.  Increasing spontaneous play by suppressing self-stimulation in autistic children. , 1974, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[6]  S. Kahng,et al.  Does functional communication training compete with ongoing contingencies of reinforcement? An analysis during response acquisition and maintenance. , 1997, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[7]  R. Herrnstein On the law of effect. , 1970, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[8]  R. M. Schell,et al.  Treatment of self-injury by providing alternate sensory activities , 1982 .

[9]  W. Fisher,et al.  Effectiveness of functional communication training with and without extinction and punishment: a summary of 21 inpatient cases. , 1998, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[10]  R. G. Smith,et al.  Analysis of the reinforcement and extinction components in DRO contingencies with self-injury. , 1993, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[11]  R. G. Smith,et al.  The functions of self-injurious behavior: an experimental-epidemiological analysis. , 1994, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[12]  W. Fisher,et al.  Treatment of pica through multiple analyses of its reinforcing functions. , 1998, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[13]  R. D. Greer,et al.  Conditioning histories and setting stimuli controlling engagement in stereotypy or toy play , 1985 .

[14]  J. Michael,et al.  Automatic Reinforcement: An Important but Ignored Concept , 1982 .

[15]  C. Newsom,et al.  Self-stimulatory behavior and perceptual reinforcement. , 1987, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[16]  W. Fisher,et al.  A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. , 1992, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[17]  L. Green,et al.  The substitutability of reinforcers. , 1993, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[18]  L. LeBlanc,et al.  Treatment of self-injury and hand mouthing following inconclusive functional analyses. , 1994, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[19]  T. Vollmer,et al.  AN ANALOGUE EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENRICHMENT: THE ROLE OF STIMULUS PREFERENCE , 1997 .

[20]  W. Mason,et al.  STEREOTYPED MOVEMENTS OF MENTAL DEFECTIVES. IV. THE EFFECTS OF TOYS AND THE CHARACTER OF THE ACTS. , 1964, American journal of mental deficiency.

[21]  T. Vollmer The concept of automatic reinforcement: implications for behavioral research in developmental disabilities. , 1994, Research in developmental disabilities.

[22]  T. Reimers,et al.  A component analysis of functional communication training across three topographies of severe behavior problems. , 1990, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[23]  R. D. Horner The effects of an environmental "enrichment" program on the behavior of institutionalized profoundly retarded children. , 1980, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[24]  N. Singh,et al.  Independent and social play among profoundly mentally retarded adults: training, maintenance, generalization, and long-term follow-up. , 1987, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[25]  R. G. Smith,et al.  An analysis of the reinforcing properties of hand mouthing. , 1995, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[26]  G. Bourland,et al.  Reduction of self-injurious behaviors by reinforcement and toy use. , 1982, Mental retardation.