1. Signs of Damage: Laboratory Roots, Assessment, & Treatment
Eb Blakely, Ph.D., BCBA-D
Quest, Inc. & Florida Institute of Technology

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
Auditory stimuli – crying, screaming, reports of harm or ill fortune
Damage to environment
Response produced stimuli – pressure on teeth, pressure on hands/feet

4. Early Non-Human Research
Shock “elicited” fighting
Subjects: Rats
Procedure: Rats exposed to shock
Measure: # of episodes of fighting
Aggression was called “reflexive”
Results: Most shocks evoked fighting

5. Early Non-Human Research
Shock “elicited” biting of inanimate objects
Subjects: Rats
Procedure: Rats exposed to shock
Measure: # of episodes of biting of metal, wood, or rubber targets

6. Human Application
Pain may evoke aggression reinforced by signs of damage
Headache
Dental work
Aggression to perpetrator

7. Early Non-Human Research
Aggression associated with schedules of reinf
Subjects: Pigeons
Procedure: Ss exposed to FR 50
Measure: # attacks to target pigeon
Results: Most attacks occurred after reinforcer offset

8. Early Non-Human Research
What kind of target is most often attacked?
Subjects: Pigeons
Procedure: Ss exposed to FR
Measure: # attacks to target (Mirror, Live protected, Stuffed)

9. Early Non-Human Research
Biting as a function of FR size
Subjects: Squirrel monkeys
Procedure: Ss exposed to FR schedules (50-200)
Measure: # bites of a rubber hose
Results: Most biting occurred after reinforcer offset as a function of ratio size

10. Early Non-Human Research
Biting during extinction of responding

11. Human Application Reinforcer offset: Leaving reinforcement programs
Large work requirements with tiny reinforcers!

12. Early Non-Human Research
Opportunity to Aggress: Is it a reinforcer?
Subjects: Pigeons
Procedure: 1) FI schedule for food and 2) 2nd key pecks  access to a target pigeon

13. Recent Non-Human Research
Opportunity to Aggress: Is it a reinforcer?
Subjects: Mice
Procedure: Intruder mouse presented after completion of FR 8 vs Ext
Results: Concurrent food schedule not needed Go

14. Human Application “I just want to break something!!”
Seeking out targets
Animal abuse

15. 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
Most likely occurs when aversive stimuli are present
May occur without “motivators”

16. Conclusions Aggression evoked by aversive stimuli is not “reflexive”
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-related stimuli may be naturally reinforcing in some species, or some members of a species
EO s may be aversive events, schedules of reinforcement, and reinforcement termination.
We should address this in behavioral assessment and Tx

17. 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

18. 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. “

19. Functional analysis: property destruction
Case #1
Functional analysis: property destruction
Throwing items/tipping chairs increased when mom reacted “frustrated” or “aggravated” compared to neutral reprimands.
Put audio of mom on iPad for free time

20. Case Study #2 Descriptive assessment information
Engages in SIB (arm scratching, and picking) during free time that produces blood
Engages in aggression when denied access
Looks for bruising/cuts after aggression
Engages in property destruction when denied access
Carefully looks at the item
Mands for item to break!

21. Case Study #2

22. Case Study #2
Reinforcer Assessment: Conc FR 1 (Finger + blood) FR 1 (Finger only)

23. Case Study #2 Program Tx elements Replacement skill:
Select alternatives when denied access
Waiting
Fade in work requirements
VR instead of FR schedules
Mand for delay of reinforcer offset
Calendar of when events will occur
Extinction? Withhold signs of damage
Wear long sleeves during sessions
Punishment – loss of items/activities/contingent brisk walking

24. 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
“Upset” caregivers
Contingent property destruction
Objects to hit/bite Go Go

25. Implications for Tx and Assessment
Programmatic Procedures
Antecedent manipulations
Replacement skills
Concurrent schedules of reinforcement for appropriate behavior
Reduction procedures
Medications Go

26. Sample Program Function: Signs of Damage Antecedent Manipulations
Remove target - When sister hits James, separate
Remove target during work requirements - Keep sister away from James when he is engaged in chores
Frequent physical games & exercise
Have potential targets do pairing
Review Article

27. Sample Program Function: Signs of Damage Acquisition Skills
Requests for physical activity
Leaving reinforcement
Use large magnitude reinforcers
Waiting programs
Slowly increase wait time
Use variable time requirements vs fixed
Especially consider waiting in divided attention situations
Task completion
Slowly increase response requirements
Consider VR instead of FR schedules

28. Sample Program Function: Signs of Damage Multiple schedules
Alternate situations when reinforcers are available with those in which they are not
Reduction Procedures
Removal of targets
Extinction: Withhold signs of damage if possible
Punishment?
Side effects! Punishment maybe an EO for further signs of damage maintained aggression

29. Extensions to Behavior Analytic Concepts
“Extinction-induced” aggression – is it “reflexive?”
Extinction as EO for signs of damage-related stimuli
Side effects of punishment: aggression!
Punishment stimuli as EO for signs of damage-related stimuli

30. Future Research Questions
Preference assessments with and without aversive stimuli
Denied access to preferred stimuli
Leaving reinforcement
Task presentation
Inclusion of signs of damage-related stimuli in standard functional analysis
Typical attention vs “upset” caregiver
Sight of blood and or bruising
Sight/sound of property destruction

31. Questions???

32. 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 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?
Return

33. Aggression as a Built-in Reinforcer
Betta Splendens
Return

34. Aggression as a Built-in Reinforcer
Round 1

35. Preference Assessments
Task  Assess Free time  Assess Denied access  Assess Free access  Assess
Return

36. Effects of Exercise: ASD Participants
Return