1. CEU Event Eb Blakely, Ph.D., BCBA-D Download PowerPoint: www.fitaba.comwww.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) 2 nd 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. Functional Analyses Results Target behavior: Throwing & tipping chairs

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

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. Implications for Tx and Assessment  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? Go

35. 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 Function: Signs of Damage

36. 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 Function: Signs of Damage

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

41. Case Study #3 Return

42. Preference Assessment  Task  MSWO  Free time  MSWO  Denied access to tangibles  MSWO  Attention deprivation  MSWO Return

43. Implications (continued)  Structured Interview Questions  Does the person seek out items to break?  Does the person seek out blood or injury?  After aggression, does the person attempt to see the injuries of the victim?  Does the behavior occur when denied access to items/activities, even though they have not been given the item/activity after the behavior?  Does the person aggress after consuming a reinforcer for which he/she had to work hard?  Does the person seem to enjoy seeing others upset?  Does the person tend to throw objects when denied access to items/activities – and then try and go see the object? Return

44. Sample Acquisition Skills Signs of Damage  Mand for physical activity  Mand to view action videos  Mand to break inexpensive items?? Return

45. Punishment of Aggression Return  Subjects: monkeys  Biting evoked by regular shock  Biting followed by shock

46. Self Control Paradigm Choice Options Impulsivity Self control 1 sec 1 min

47. Self Control Paradigm Expanded Choice Options Impulsivity Long-term harm Short-term reinforcer Self-control Long-term reinforcer Short-term discomfort

48. Self Control Paradigm Signs of Damage Choice Impulsivity Long-term loss of reinf Sign of damage Self-control Long-term reinforcers No damage, denied access, tasks