An Evaluation of the Effects of Matched Stimuli on Behaviors Maintained by Automatic Reinforcement

Abstract

The purpose of the current investigation was to extend the literature on matched stimuli to three dissimilar forms of aberrant behavior (dangerous climbing and jumping, saliva manipulation, and hand mouthing). The results of functional analyses suggested that each behavior was automatically reinforced. Preference assessments were used to identify two classes of stimuli: items that matched the hypothesized sensory consequences of aberrant behavior (matched stimuli) and items that produced sensory consequences that were not similar to those produced by the aberrant behavior (unmatched stimuli). The effects of providing continuous and noncontingent access to either the most highly preferred matched or the most highly preferred unmatched stimuli were assessed relative to a condition in which no stimuli were available. Overall results suggested that providing access to items that matched the hypothesized sensory consequences of aberrant behavior may be more effective than simply selecting stimuli either arbitrarily or based on the results of preference assessments alone.

Stereotypy in autism: The importance of function

“…Although the particular sensory function being stimulated may not always be visually apparent to an observer, stereotypies often provide an obvious source of sensory input (e.g., visual, auditory, tactile vestibular, taste, or smell). Additionally, single-subject research has shown that interventions that either remove the sensory component of stereotypy (e.g., sensory extinction), or provide alternative but age-appropriate forms of sensory input (e.g., functional matching procedures), lead to a reduction in stereotypic behaviors for many children (Piazza, et al, 2000;Rapp, 2006;Rapp, 2007;Rincover, 1978;Rincover, et al, 1979). Lastly, several studies have demonstrated that allowing children with autism to engage in stereotypic behaviors contingent upon other target behaviors is reinforcing and without negative side effects (Charlop, Kurtz, & Casey, 1990;Hanley, Iwata, Thompson, & Lindberg, 2000;Kennedy, et al, 2000;Wolery, Kirk, & Gast, 1985).…”

“…Researchers suggest that noncontingent access to stimuli matched in sensory function to the preferred sensory reinforcer may reduce the establishing operation (EO) for stereotypy and its frequency of occurrence (Piazza, et al, 2000;Rapp, 2006). For example, a child who engages in repetitive spinning of objects for the visual sensory feedback might be provided with noncontingent access to spin tops.…”

“…Some data suggest that providing access to toys matched with stereotypy on their sensory consequences is more effective than providing access to arbitrarily selected stimuli or preferred toys inconsistent with sensory function (Piazza, et al, 2000). However, other research indicates that relative preference of an object, regardless of matched reinforcement, may decrease stereotypy equally well (Ahearn, Clark, DeBar, & Florentino, 2005).…”

“…Although the underlying causes of stereotypy are unknown, most scientists in the field believe it comprises a class of operant behaviors maintained by reinforcement contingencies (Koegel & Covert, 1972;Lovaas, Newsom, & Hickman, 1987;Rapp & Vollmer, 2005;Rogers & Ozonoff, 2005). A substantial body of research provides evidence for a sensory function of stereotypy, whereby behavior is maintained by automatic reinforcement (Lovaas, et al, 1987;Piazza, Adelinis, Hanley, Goh, & Delia, 2000;Rapp, 2006;Rincover, 1978;Rincover, Cook, Peoples, & Packard, 1979). This literature contends that social consequences are not operative, and this has encouraged a cascade of behavioral interventions presuming a predetermined sensory or self-stimulatory function of stereotypy.…”

A Review and Treatment Selection Model for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities Who Engage in Inappropriate Sexual Behavior

“…Previous research supports the use of noncontingent reinforcement via reinforcement of preferred object manipulation to decrease other topographies of automatically maintained challenging behavior (Britton et al 2002;Lindberg et al 2003). Antecedent manipulations, specifically environmental enrichment, have demonstrated success in the reduction of automatically maintained problem behavior as well (Piazza et al 2000;Rapp and Vollmer, 2005;Vollmer et al 1994). The availability of preferred stimuli may indirectly compete with the reinforcement provided by automatically maintained ISB, thereby reducing the frequency of ISB.…”