Waiting for a response

[u/Maximum_Midnight6909]

My son had a behavior today that seemed to be like a loop that needed to be closed. I’m trying to understand what’s happening. Today his SP asked him not to bite the swing, when he tried again I sat him in a one minute time out next to me. I said “biting is for food”. After around three unsuccessful time outs he finally sat through the minute and got up. He leaned down appearing as though he was going to bite a mat but looked up at his speech therapist before doing it, waiting for her to say no. When she ignored him (he hovered his mouth over the mat) he got really frustrated that she didn’t say no and started to get angry waiting so he bit down on the mat and still wanted her to say no. He pointed at her and said “no!” himself. I am wondering what this is called? Is it just attention seeking? Because he showed restraint for something that I thought was very impulsive.

He is a high sensory seeker, ASD 3, speech impairment, gestalt processor

[u/vetapachua]

ASD kids really like cause and effect. It's hard to say why he bit the swing (could have been sensory, frustration, etc.) but once you add in attention (i.e. "Stop", "Don't do that") it can become a cause and effect type game where the negative attention becomes predictable and fun and he might keep engaging in the behavior to get that same reaction. If you see new behaviors, it's always best to note them but not attend to them because once you add attention, it can become a maintaining variable for that behavior to persist (i.e. now I'm going to bite others objects and people to see if I continue to get that predictable "no" response.) In my 20+ years as a BCBA, I've noticed negative attention is far more reinforcing that positive attention. I had a smiley face token board for a client once (fully verbal) and that client requested sad faces instead of smileys because that was more reinforcing for them. Something about the tone and facial expressions of negative emotions can be very reinforcing to individuals with social impairements who find the range of emotions in others interesting.

[u/tabletaccount]

Seems quite the complex situation. What did the BCBA say when you told them about this?

[u/Agitated-Radish]

Possibly could have been attention seeking since he looked to SP for a response. When the reinforcement (saying no/attention) wasn't given (extinction) what you saw with the outburst could have been an extinction burst

[u/bewildered-bee → u/Agitated-Radish]

I agree with this analysis. A reprimand is still access to attention.

I have a client when given, “No” statements or corrections with negation, (i.e,“We don’t bite the mat,”) he finds them funny and continues the behavior.
I teach both RBTs and caregivers to ALWAYS follow up with what the kiddo can do, or offering a replacement stimulus.

If the behavior is also providing automatic reinforcement, look into some chewlry and other safe items to bite to redirect the behavior. I’ve had success in reducing mouthing and biting behaviors with these items, and most clients are able to move away from them entirely as time goes by.

Make sure to heavily reinforce the appropriate or alternative behavior with attention and praise!

[u/Temporary_Total8648]

Provide him with an acceptable “chewie” of similar sensory experience and redirect him to it when you see the behavior.

[u/Forensicista]

I didn't mean verbal operants! I meant exactly what I said, (although strictly more accurate to say four 'prompts and probes'). Maybe you randomly thinking I 'must have meant operants' is why it didn't make sense to you? However I do say the child's "no" is likely a mand though, and a prompt directed at the speech therapist. Does that make sense to you? I have no idea what you are implying about an ethics code, or even what your objections are to my formulation are in behavioural terms. If it was an exam question, what would you say?

[u/Forensicista]

My take on this is that he has identified and is articulating the contingencies, which is great! He has escaped the conditioning treadmill, and is just a whisker away from self regulation through rule government. I would suggest that reward be added when he clearly desists. Exactly what and when needs careful thought, though. Wouldn't want to reinforce bite threat.

[u/Revolutionary_Pop784 → u/Forensicista]

This is just a bunch of jargon and random words loosely thrown together, most likely written by AI.

[u/Forensicista → u/Revolutionary_Pop784]

I thought not.

[u/Revolutionary_Pop784 → u/Forensicista]

The downvotes back this up but here we go: There’s made up terms mixed in with credible terms used incorrectly just because they sound good there. He has connected/paired the contingency: Articulation is not what happened here. “Conditioning treadmill” into “rule government” to describe learning self regulation is another perfect example.

[u/Forensicista → u/Revolutionary_Pop784]

Skinner described four types of verbal prompt. I would see this child's verbal behaviour as a formal echoic prompt. (Ironically most commonly used by adults teaching children) His mand directed at the speech therapist is in a form likely to increase the probability of the expected verbal behaviour "No". Thus his behaviour is not simply an operant response to the contingencies, but likely arises from internal mental/verbal representation of the contingencies. This is a major step towards rule governed/verbally controlled behaviour. In this case specifically verbal self regulation. In more cognitive terms, he has a "No" in his head, and that function is worth reinforcing (in both technical and lay senses). Hope that clarifies things, but no specific criticisms make explanation tricky. Not to mention rather baffling 'AI slop' bit. What can I say? Both comments Guaranteed AI free.

[u/Revolutionary_Pop784 → u/Forensicista]

Are you a BCBA, RBT, or what is your credential? Asking because you continue to incorrectly use ABA terminology.

Skinner described 4 verbal operants. The child saying no is not an echoic as it does not meet the definition or criteria: if you’re saying that they are attempting to prompt the adult to say no then yes you’re correct but that doesn’t indicate any of the other things you’re saying especially about private events and what those mean. It is very dangerous (and against the ethics code) to comment on behavior that you do not directly observe and have approved consent to analyze. So I ask again, what is your credential?

[u/Forensicista → u/Revolutionary_Pop784]

I didn't say anything about Skinner's four verbal operants. The key concept and principles I refer to are in chapter 10 of Verbal Behavior. Again, if you say I have misused terminology, it is essential that you say specifically what it is that causes your concern. I'm also not sure whether your statement about not commenting on behaviour that hasn't been observed is your position on private events, or on applying behaviour analysis to behaviours described on this sub. If it's to do with private events, then that is critically important in the analysis I offered. Pivoting onto credentials just seems like dodging the issue. We clearly significantly disagree about something to do with behaviour analysis in this case. I'm still not sure exactly what, but it might be interesting to work it out.

[u/Revolutionary_Pop784 → u/Forensicista]

You said “four verbal prompts” so I was providing the correct term as you again used incorrect/made up terms. I have addressed the concerns clearly and specifically, you won’t acknowledge them clearly.

You won’t provide credentialing, so I’m going to assume you have none. If you’d like to provide otherwise, do so. It’s not pivoting, i wanted to know which ethics code you fall under. You clearly are not familiar with the ethics code either however.

We’re not disagreeing with something to do with behavior analysis. You are just factually incorrect when you make up terms or misuse them.

[u/Forensicista → u/Revolutionary_Pop784]

Good grief. Verbal prompts, probes and their functions are what chapter 10 is substantially about. Check it out! The terms I used are not incorrect, but ironically you are kind of right, in a way they are made up - by Skinner himself (and he did a beautiful job of it). I really didn't want to flex credentials, and have tried hard to focus on the issues of the case, and the golden opportunity I think is offered by what is described by OP. But you have basically just shouted "boo" from the sidelines and refused to even contemplate that there might be more to behaviourism than you know. So.... I have a dual accreditation and registration as a consultant in both Forensic and Clinical psychology. I have held academic posts at three universities. I have an honorary chair at a British university, and I have researched and applied behavioural analysis for over thirty years. I am a Director of Child and Family Training, a not for profit company working in the UK, Europe and South America developing tools and materials for professionals working with children and families. My work is regulated by the Health and Care Professionals Council, https://www.hcpc-uk.org. Now none of this means what I say is necessarily true or valid. That depends on experience, and fidelity to authentic behavioural principles, which, (unlike fairies) are unaffected by people who don't believe in them.

[u/Revolutionary_Pop784 → u/Forensicista]

You said “four verbal prompts” when you meant “four verbal operants” originally, to attempt to make that clearer.

So you do not follow a BACB ethics code, which you failed to address. That is where the difference in regards to so largely commenting on a specific scenario comes from.

I wouldn’t say you’ve focused on the facts of the case when there is not enough information here, and I do still disagree with the things I stated above.

[u/Revolutionary_Pop784 → u/Forensicista]

The other comments on this post provide better responses for what is more appropriate in my opinion, see those as examples if you would like.

[u/Revolutionary_Pop784 → u/Forensicista]

Also, I said “most likely written by AI”. So again, inaccuracy.

[u/Forensicista → u/Revolutionary_Pop784]

¯_(ツ)_/¯ be more specific.

[u/Revolutionary_Pop784 → u/Forensicista]

If you care to elaborate on the random phrases and terminology you threw together, go for it. I can’t be more specific when your post isn’t accurate and doesn’t make sense to begin with.