1. Task as Reinforcer: A Reactive Alternative to Escape Extinction Steve Ward, MA, BCBA Whole Child Consulting, LLC www.wholechildconsulting.com http://www.facebook.com/wholechildc onsulting

2. Escape behavior is a problem Escape/avoidance is the most common function of SIB (38.1%) (Iwata, et al, 1994) Students of all types postpone work, and some have devised elaborate or intense escape/avoidance routines For students learning in a group format, the more they avoid, the further behind they become, the more they need to avoid

3. Some Proactive measures Condition tasks as reinforcers Frequent reinforcement Demand fading Errorless teaching (*sometimes the opposite of helpful) Curricular revision Visual schedules

4. Usually more effective when combined with escape extinction Escape extinction has been used effectively as a treatment component (e.g., combined with demand fading) (Mason & Iwata, 1990; Pace, Iwata, Cowdery, Andree, & McIntyre, 1993; Steege, Wacker, Berg, Cigrand, & Cooper, 1989) This is usually* true, except when escape extinction causes more problems than it solves (e.g., Selina)

5. Escape extinction can have negative side effects Aggression, increased frequency and intensity of target behavior (Goh & Iwata, 1994; Lerman, Iwata, & Wallace, 1999) Condition teacher and/or activities as aversives

6. What EXACTLY does escape extinction look like? “Sit there until you’re finished” Nag (repeated verbal SD’s) Hand-over-hand How long, how often, contingent upon what behaviors, how much feedback? There are several variable dimensions in need of exploration

7. You’ll remember, of course, what Jack Michael (1993) said about reinforcement as a “dynamic process” Neither reinforcement nor punishment are “static”. We have to consider the post- behavior context relative to the pre-behavior context.

8. This suggests at least 2 broad options Make the “post” that much better or make the “pre” that much worse. When things are going pretty well, we focus primarily upon making the world better after cooperation. When the student is non-cooperative, we shouldn’t look for ways to make the world better if he will cooperate or remind him what he “is working for”, but we need to consider what things are contingent upon cooperation.

9. Pre-cooperation conditions: Continuum of intrusion Hand-over- hand escape extinction Contained within work room, verbal and gestural reminders, but no HOH Contained within work area. No reminders* to cooperate. Allowed to leave work area, no reminders to return to work. 1-3 potential reinforcers withheld. Positive attention provided to cooperative peers (contingent attention) (e.g., Iwata, Pace, Kalsher, Cowdery & Cataldo, 1990) Piazza, Moes, and Fisher (1996) Current study- Ward, Parker, Grimes, & Perdikaris,(201 6?) (e.g., “Baby Bunny Ribbon Time out”, The Tough Kid Handbook and Schramm’s “7 steps”) (e.g., Madsen, Becker, & Thomas, 1968) Most intrusive Least intrusive

10. Advantages of wait outs? Wait outs can usually be implemented without physical contact, decreasing the possibility of aggression It can be difficult to clearly distinguish pure escape/avoidance from behavior also maintained by attention. “Wait outs” make attention* contingent upon readiness. For those who don’t like attention, the procedure can help to condition attention as a reinforcer, removed from the “nag” context and put into the “moving forward” context.

11. Work materials available Works well Doesn’t work well (active or passive) “That’s not ready” and remove materials* and limit access to rfs. Calms/focuse s for at least 5 seconds “Ready?”, while offering work materials Confirms readiness Not ready

12. So, we’re following inappropriate escape behaviors with escape?

13. It works Study 1-3 students new to a special needs clinic. Wait outs are the only reactive measure. Study 2-multiple baseline across stressors Study 3-wait outs used to treat “passive resistance” for 2 activities with 1 student, in a multiple baseline.

14. Gathering data (these are actual data from one student) DateNumber of rejectionsTotal Duration# of daily episodes 1/140:00:153 1/140:00:40 1/140:02:02 1/1530:03:172 1/150:00:29 1/1610:12:452 1/160:05:36 1/200:00:053 1/200:01:00 1/200:01:23 1/2110:01:591 1/22NA0 1/270:00:051 1/28NA0

15. Those data are graphed for Drew Count and duration Days

16. And for Jack Count and minutes Days

17. And for Adi Count and minutes Days

18. Appropriate tolerance BL Wait outs sessions

19. Study 3-treating passive resistance. Baseline RD People WO for missing transfers sessions

20. Potential benefits in comparison to escape extinction Less confrontational CMO-R becomes conditioned rf (opportunity to move forward). *This is a step towards self- management and the efficacy of delayed consequences. Especially for less-disruptive students, wait outs are much more practical than escape extinction in classroom environments Social validity

21. Common errors Failing to use positioning to clarify communication Representing work without asking whether “ready?” (same as “nag” procedure) **Remember that waiting only works if the “pre” is less valuable than the “post” Swimming Doesn’t get out for work Wait out with him in pool?

22. Limitations The more a student is truly into self- stimulatory behavior, the harder “wait outs” are to use effectively (requires frequent blocking of self-stimulatory behavior)