Manipulating the evocative and abative effects of an establishing operation: influences on challenging behavior during classroom instruction

MANIPULATING THE EVOCATIVE ANDABATIVEEFFECTS OFANESTABLISHINGOPERATION:

INFLUENCES ONCHALLENGINGBEHAVIORDURINGCLASSROOM INSTRUCTION

Mark O’Reilly1*, Chaturi Edrisinha2, Jeff Sigafoos3, Giulio Lancioni4,Helen Cannella5, Wendy Machalicek1 and Paul Langthorne6

1University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA2Saint Cloud State University, Saint Cloud, MN, USA

3University of Tasmania, Australia4University of Bari, Bari, Italy

5Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA6University of Kent, Canterbury, England

In this study we examined the evocative and abative effects of an establishing operation on challenging

behavior during classroom instruction for a student with severe disabilities including autism. A prior

functional analysis indicated that his challenging behavior was maintained by access to preferred snack

items. During classroom instructional sessions these snack items were visible but not available to the

student. In other words challenging behavior was placed on extinction during instruction. Immediately

prior to instructional sessions the student received either access to snack items or did not receive access

to snacks. Access versus no access to snacks prior to instruction was systematically controlled using a

multi-element design. Results demonstrated higher levels of challenging behavior during instruction

when the student did not have access to snacks prior to instruction. Very little challenging behavior

occurred during instructional sessions when the student had prior access to snacks. Implications for

considering the evocative and abative effects of establishing operations when implementing operant

extinction in applied settings are discussed. Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION

Establishing operations (EOs) (also termed motivating operations) are antecedent

variables that influence the probability of operant responding in a number of ways

(Michael, 1982, 1993, 2000). First, EOs can influence the power of consequences to

act as reinforcers. For example, when a person is deprived of attention then attention

Behavioral Interventions

Behav. Intervent. 22: 137–145 (2007)

Published online 30 October 2006 in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/bin.226

*Correspondence to: Mark O’Reilly, Department of Special Education, 1 University Station, D5300, TheUniversity of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

might act as a more powerful reinforcer (McComas, Thompson, & Johnson, 2003).

This is termed the reinforcer-establishing effect. Alternatively, prior access to high

levels of attention might eventually reduce the power of attention to act as a reinforcer

(McComas et al.). This is termed the reinforcer-abolishing effect. Second, in addition

to these reinforcer-altering effects the EO may have an evocative or abative effect on

behavior. For example, food deprivation may result in increases in behaviors that

have previously been reinforced by food (e.g., foraging). This is referred to as the

evocative effect. Alternatively, food satiation may result in a concomitant decrease in

these behaviors. This is termed the abative effect. It is important to note that this

evocative and abative effect of the EO can influence operant responding in the

absence of reinforcing consequences (Laraway, Syncerski, Michael, & Poling, 2003).

In recent years there has been an increasing interest in the application of EOs to

enhance instructional strategies and behavior management approaches with

individuals having developmental disabilities (e.g., Kennedy & O’Reilly, 2006;

Wilder & Carr, 1998). For example, Taylor et al. (2005) taught three students with

autism to initiate interactions with peers. The students with autism received preferred

snacks contingent upon appropriate initiations with their peers. The results of this

study indicated that students with autism initiated with peers when they were deprived

of snacks prior to sessions. They did not interact with peers when they had access to

snacks prior to sessions. These results demonstrate that pre-session deprivation of

snacks established snacks as reinforcers thereby enhancing the effectiveness of the

intervention. In another example, O’Reilly (1995) demonstrated that challenging

behavior of an adult with severe disabilities was maintained by negative

reinforcement (escape from task demands). He further demonstrated that negatively

reinforced challenging behavior was more frequent on those days that were followed

by a night of disrupted sleep. These results suggested that sleep disruption established

or increased the aversiveness of task demands and thereby increased the probability of

escape-maintained challenging behavior when task demands were presented. The

intervention, derived from the assessment of EOs and maintaining contingencies

included daytime naps (to abolish the influence of sleep disruption) and simplifying

task demands (to reduce their aversiveness).

Intervention research to date has primarily focused on the reinforcer establishing or

abolishing effects of the EO. In other words, researchers have examined how EOs

influence the consequences maintaining responses (as described in the previous

paragraph). However, EOs may also influence operant responding when con-

sequences are not immediately available (i.e., the evocative and abative effect). For

example, a student may be motivated to access attention (e.g., interaction with peers)

or tangible items (e.g., a favorite toy or snack item) when these consequences are

currently unavailable (peers may be working on an academic task, another student

may be playing with a favorite toy, or it may not be an appropriate time to receive a

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 22: 137–145 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/bin

138 M. O’Reilly et al.

snack). In essence we are describing a situation where the motivation to access a

consequence is present (i.e., the evocative effect of the EO), the discriminative

stimulus is present (i.e., peers, favorite toy, and snacks) but the response is placed on

extinction. In such situations the EO may evoke challenging responses (e.g.,

self-injury and aggression) that have previously been reinforced by consequences

such as peer attention, accessing favorite toys, or snacks.

There are three general approaches to intervention for challenging behavior in such

circumstances. First, a consequence-based intervention might include differential

reinforcement of appropriate responding and perhaps punishment of challenging

behavior. Second, the discriminative stimulus for challenging behavior might be

removed from the locale. For example, the student might be removed from the

environment where peers are present. Snacks or favorite toys might be removed from

the classroom. However, removal of the discriminative stimulus may be impractical in

some situations (e.g., removing the child from the classroom, padlocking the

refrigerator door, etc.). A final strategy might be to reduce the evocative effectiveness

of the EO. Such an intervention might reduce challenging behavior by eliminating the

motivation to access the consequence. No research to date has examined the

effectiveness of this latter proposal for reducing challenging behavior in students with

developmental disabilities.

In the present study we attempted to reduce the evocative effects of an EO for

challenging behavior with a student with autism and severe disabilities during

classroom instructional routines. An analog functional analysis had previously

determined that the student’s challenging behavior (self-injury and aggression) was

maintained by access to preferred snacks. During instructional routines preferred

snacks were visible but not available. Therefore challenging behavior was placed on

extinction during instruction. Prior to instructional sessions the student was either

given access to snacks or no access to snacks. The no access condition ensured that the

motivation (EO) for snacks was present and this condition might therefore be

expected to evoke challenging behavior during instructional sessions. In contrast the

access condition was designed to create an abative effect and reduce the motivation to

engage in challenging behavior during instruction.

METHOD

Participant, Setting, and Therapist

Sam was a 14-year-old male. He functioned at the 2-year-old level on the Vineland

Adaptive Behavior Scales—Interview Edition (Sparrow, Balla, & Cicchetti, 1984)

and in the severe range of the Childhood Autism Rating Scale (Schopler, Reichler, &

Renner, 1988). He attended a special school for students with autism. Five other


DOI: 10.1002/bin

Manipulating the evocative 139

students with similar disabilities and four staff (including one certified special

education teacher) were typically present in Sam’s classroom. Sessions were

conducted in his classroom when no other students were present. All instructional

sessions were conducted by the first author.

Functional Analysis

A functional analysis of Sam’s challenging behavior was conducted prior to this

study and the session by session analysis of his data are presented in graphic form

elsewhere (cf. O’Reilly, Sigafoos et al., 2006). A series of four conditions were

conducted to identify consequences maintaining challenging behavior and included

play, attention, demand, and tangible conditions. Sessions of each condition (5-min

per session) were implemented in a multi-element design to demonstrate

experimental control. No challenging behavior occurred during the play, attention,

and demand sessions throughout the assessment. Challenging behavior occurred

exclusively during the tangible condition (mean 20% of intervals; range 7–40% of

intervals). During the tangible condition of the functional analysis challenging

behavior produced contingent access to preferred snacks such as cheese crackers.

Data Collection and Target Behaviors

All classroom instructional sessions were videotaped and the frequency of four

target behaviors was measured. Hand biting was scored when Sam placed his hand

past the plane of his lips and closed his upper and lower teeth on his hand. Head

banging was scored when there was forceful contact of his head against the tabletop.

Head hittingwas scored any time there was forceful contact of a closed fist to any part

of the head. Staff hittingwas scored any time there was forceful contact of Sam’s foot,

fist, or head with the therapist.

Procedures

A series of regular classroom instructional sessions were conducted with Sam.

During these instructional sessions a supply of preferred snack items was kept before

him but not provided to him. Access to snacks immediately prior to instructional

sessions was systematically controlled to evaluate the effects of this antecedent

manipulation on challenging behavior during instructional sessions.

Instructional Sessions With Tangibles Present

Instructional sessions lasted 10min. During sessions a therapist engaged Sam in

activities that had been prioritized according to his individualized education plan.


DOI: 10.1002/bin


These instructional sessions were similar to those in the demand condition of the

functional analysis described earlier. Instructional sessions consisted of teaching Sam

to name pictures of everyday items and to engage in play skills. For example, Samwas

asked to point to a picture from an array of four pictures of everyday items that were

placed on his desk in front of him. A time-delay protocol with a verbal and point

prompt was used to teach the skills. Errors were corrected using light physical

prompts combined with verbal prompts (e.g., ‘No, this is the automobile’). Physical

guidance was also used as necessary (e.g., moving his finger to point to the picture of

the automobile). A new array of four pictures was then placed on the table in front of

him and he was again asked to point to one of the pictures. During play Sam was

taught to use stencils to draw a variety of shapes. The therapist used a least-to-most

prompt procedure (verbal, model, and light physical prompts) to teach him to use

these materials. Correct performance was followed with verbal praise. Five minutes

was allotted to naming and play instruction, respectively, during each session.

During all instructional sessions a translucent plastic container that was filled with

a supply of preferred snack items was placed on the table. This container was out of

reach but visible to Sam. Sam never had access to the food during instructional

sessions. Challenging behavior was ignored during instructional sessions. The

therapist continued with instructional trials. Sam’s challenging behavior, while

sometimes occurring at high frequencies, was never so severe to warrant early

termination of sessions.

Pre-session Access Versus no Access to Tangibles

Access to snacks was systematically controlled immediately prior to instructional

sessions in an attempt to isolate the potential evocative and abative effects of this

putative EO. Pre-session access consisted of giving Sam unlimited access to snacks

for 15min immediately prior to instructional sessions. Pre-session no access

consisted of conducting instructional sessions following at least a 2-h period of time

in which he had not received any snacks.

Experimental Design

The pre-session access versus no access to tangibles conditions were systematically

manipulated in a multi-element treatment design in order to evaluate the influence of

this antecedent manipulation on challenging behavior during instructional sessions.

Inter-observer Agreement

All instructional sessions were videotaped and inter-observer agreement was

conducted on 100% of the sessions. Two observers simultaneously but independently


DOI: 10.1002/bin


observed the instructional sessions and scored the frequency of challenging behavior.

Inter-observer agreement was calculated by dividing the smaller number of responses

by the larger number and multiplying by 100% to produce an overall agreement score

of 96%.

RESULTS

The cumulative frequency of Sam’s challenging behavior during instructional

sessions is presented in Figure 1. Data are plotted separately for the antecedent

conditions (i.e., access vs. no access). Very little challenging behavior occurred

during instructional sessions when Sam received access to the snacks immediately

prior to sessions (total of 16 occurrences of challenging behavior). Alternatively, there

were high frequencies of challenging behavior during instruction when he was

deprived of snacks prior to instructional sessions (total of 279 occurrences of

challenging behavior).

Figure 1. Cumulative frequency of challenging behavior during instructional sessions under pre-sessionaccess versus pre-session no access conditions.


DOI: 10.1002/bin


The frequency of each topography of challenging behavior during instruction

across the access versus no access conditions is presented in Figure 2. Hand biting and

head banging were the most prevalent topographies across both conditions. Sam

displayed the other two topographies of challenging behavior (staff hitting and head

hitting) almost exclusively during instruction that was preceded by no access to the

tangibles.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study demonstrate the evocative and abative influence of the EO

on challenging behavior during classroom instruction for Sam, a student with autism

and severe disabilities. High frequencies of challenging behavior occurred during

many instructional sessions when Sam did not have access to snacks prior to those

sessions. Alternatively, when snacks were available prior to instruction therewas little

Figure 2. Frequency of each topography of challenging behavior during instructional sessions underpre-session access versus pre-session no access conditions.


DOI: 10.1002/bin


challenging behavior. Sam never received any snacks (i.e., reinforcement) for

challenging behavior during instructional sessions. It would thus appear that the no

access condition produced a state of deprivation that had an evocative effect on

challenging behavior during the subsequent instructional session. In contrast, the

access condition appears to have produced a state of satiation, resulting in an abative

effect on challenging behavior during instructional sessions.

In addition to higher frequencies of challenging behavior in sessions preceded by

the no access condition we also observed additional topographies of challenging

behavior (i.e., staff hitting and head hitting). Such patterns of responding (high

frequency of behavior coupled with an increase in aggression) are some of the typical

side effects of placing operant behavior on extinction (Lerman, Iwata, & Wallace,

1999). Interestingly, there was only one occurrence of aggression coupled with low

levels of challenging behavior during instruction when Sam was satiated on snacks.

These results seem to have important implications for using operant extinction in

applied settings. For example, it may be prudent to combine operant extinction with

some manipulation of EOs (e.g., prior satiation with the consequences) in order to

reduce the negative side effects of extinction during intervention.

In essence, the results of this study provide a preliminary demonstration of a fairly

simple antecedent intervention for reducing object-motivated challenging behavior

during instructional sessions. Challenging behavior may become problematic in

situations where the discriminative stimulus and EO for such behavior are present. In

many situations it may be impossible to remove the discriminative stimulus for such

behavior. In such circumstances an intervention designed to reduce the evocative

effects of the EO may be an unobtrusive yet effective strategy.

Michael (1982, 1993, 2000) has provided the behavioral community with a rich

description of the possible functional properties of antecedent control. To date

researchers have tended to focus on the reinforcer establishing and abolishing

properties of the EO. Researchers have only recently begun to empirically tease out

the evocative and abative influences of the EO (O’Reilly, Edrisinha et al., 2006;

O’Reilly, Sigafoos et al., 2006). Michael also provides the field with descriptions of

various types of EOs (e.g., transitive, conditioned, and unconditioned EOs). Future

research should continue to examine the ultimate applied utility of many of these

constructs.

While the results of the current study are relatively clear it is necessary to replicate

these findings with other participants who exhibit different topographies of

challenging behavior. Additionally, the current study evaluated this evocative and

abative effect for positively reinforced challenging behavior. Clearly, there is a need

to examine how such antecedent variables influence negatively reinforced

challenging behavior. It is also important to begin to consider issues regarding

generalization and maintenance of such treatment effects in future research.


DOI: 10.1002/bin


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Wewish to thank the Autism Treatment Centers of Dallas and San Antonio for their

help in conducting this research. Requests for reprints can be sent to Mark O’Reilly,

Department of Special Education, 1 University Station D5300, The University of

Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712.

REFERENCES

Kennedy, C. H., & O’Reilly, M. F. (2006). Pain, health conditions, and problem behavior in people with

developmental disabilities. In T. Oberlander, & F. Symons (Eds.), Pain in children and adults with

developmental disabilities (pp. 121–135). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Laraway, S., Snycerski, S., Michael, J., & Poling, A. (2003). Motivating operations and terms to describe

them: Some further refinements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 407–414.

Lerman, D., Iwata, B., & Wallace, M. (1999). Side effects of extinction: Prevalence of bursting and

aggression during the treatment of self-injurious behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32,

1–8.

McComas, J., Thompson, A., & Johnson, L. (2003). The effects of presession attention on problem

behavior maintained by different reinforcers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 297–307.

Michael, J. (1982). Distinguishing between discriminative and motivational functions of stimuli. Journal

of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 149–155.

Michael, J. (1993). Establishing operations. The Behavior Analyst, 16, 191–206.

Michael, J. (2000). Implications and refinements of the establishing operation concept. Journal of

Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 401–410.

O’Reilly, M. F. (1995). Functional analysis and treatment of escape-maintained aggression correlated

with sleep deprivation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 225–226.

O’Reilly, M. F., Edrisinha, C., Sigafoos, J., Lancioni, G., & Andrews, A. (2006). Isolating the evocative

and abative effects of an establishing operation on challenging behavior. Behavioral Interventions, 21,

195–204.

O’Reilly, M. F., Sigafoos, J., Edrisinha, C., Lancioni, G., Cannella, H., Choi, H., & Barretto, A. (2006).

A preliminary examination of the evocative effects of the establishing operation. Journal of Applied

Behavior Analysis, 39, 239–242.

Schopler, E., Reichler, R. J., & Renner, B. R. (1988). The childhood autism rating scale (CARS). Los

Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1984). Vineland adaptive behavior scales: Interview

edition. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Taylor, B., Hoch, H., Potter, B., Rodriguez, A., Spinnato, D., & Kalaigian, M. (2005). Manipulating

establishing operations to promote initiations toward peers in children with autism. Research in

Developmental Disabilities, 26, 385–392.

Wilder, D., & Carr, J. (1998). Recent advances in the modification of establishing operations to reduce

aberrant behavior. Behavioral Interventions, 13, 43–59.


DOI: 10.1002/bin


Documents

Manipulating the evocative and abative effects of an establishing operation: influences on challenging behavior during classroom instruction