Three-term contingency of the day: That awful noise!

Antecedent: Eric is grinding our kitchen knives against the knife sharpener.

Behaviour: I cover my ears with my hands and sing to myself while chattering my teeth.

Consequence: The metal grinding noise is blocked (negative reinforcement).

I shutter even writing about this one. I hate the sound of metal rubbing on metal. It's horrific. It hurts. I can't even stand watching it because the anticipation of the sound I know it makes causes me to tense up. To ease that feeling, I have learned a repertoire of behaviours to block that noise out - covering my ears, leaving the space entirely, singing or humming to myself (although it's often a shrill "eeeeeeeeeeeeek" that gets the job done), sucking on my cheek or chattering my teeth together to create additional noise. I cannot sort cutlery without doing a combination of these things.

I work with individuals who have very real sound aversions. They might have aversions to the announcements over the PA system, the school bell ringing, the sound of large trucks going by, appliances when turned on etc. Even the pitch of someone's voice can be aversive. It may be common for them to cover their ears, but I am also finding many of the individuals create additional noises as perhaps another way to block the noise. If it is successful, they are going to do it again the next time that awful noise is present. It may seem insolent or that they are being disruptive on purpose, but I hope you now take time to consider what else is going on in the environment. Pay attention to the sounds going on around you. Any one of them could be the antecedent to their behaviour.

Three-term contingency of the day: Yes, Oma!

Antecedent: A table full of meat, bread and cheeses, possibly some fruit and Oma insisting (in German) that I need to eat something despite me telling her I'm not hungry. Translated: "You're too skinny!", "You hardly eat!", "You don't eat enough fruit!" (repeat).

Behaviour: I accept a sandwich and eat it.

Consequence: My Oma stops nagging me about eating (negative reinforcement)

Oh, European grandmothers...always checking that their grandchildren are fed. Every time I visit there is a meal or a spread ready to go. I know my Oma loves to make sure we are all taken care of but there are times where I am legitimately not hungry. That matters not to Oma. You must and will eat the fine German feast laid out for you. There is plenty of Brot and Schinkenspeck to go around and it will be consumed.

To reduce the pressure and ultimately please my Oma, I ingest. I suppose another consequence is that it tastes good. No complaints about that!

Four-Term Contingency Of The Day: Garlic smell be gone

Motivating operation: Garlic smell on my fingers from mincing garlic.

Discriminative stimulus: Stainless steel sink

Behaviour: Rub my hands along the side of the sink

Consequence: Garlic smell is gone (negative reinforcement).

Got this tidbit from our friend and it works! I am likely to do this the next time I chop garlic because the behaviour was reinforced. No more garlic pan hands for me!

A friendly kitchen tip brought to you by Behaviourist at Play.

Four-Term Contingency Of The Day: Bumper to Bumper

Motivating operation: I see the brake lights of the car ahead of me come on.

Discriminative stimulus: Brake pedal in my car.

Behaviour: I lift my foot off of the gas pedal and step onto the brake pedal.

Consequence: I slow down and stop in time enough to avoid hitting the car ahead of me (negative reinforcement)

I have not done a four-term contingency in a while but this one came to me while sitting in traffic yesterday. It can be difficult to separate the motivating operation (MO) from the discriminative stimulus (SD), but I think this example highlights quite nicely the 'availability of reinforcement' factor that defines the SD versus the 'need for reinforcement' factor which defines MO.

While driving, we have available to us the break pedal for slowing down or stopping our vehicle. But is is not used all the time. We have learned that pressing the brake pedal is a reliable means of avoiding something or someone, keeping you and others safe. There are any number of situations that suddenly require us to behave in a way that will avoid hitting objects or people. These additional environmental changes such as the car's brake lights or a child running out into the road are what establishes the need for reinforcement - in this case avoidance of hitting the car ahead or another person.

In summary (or in other words), we always have available to us the potential to brake; however, only do so when there is a need for it.

I'm writing a paper on parent training in relation to ABA. Do you have any suggestions on what articles to look at or what would be beneficial to focus on? I was thinking about reasons why parents are non-compliant or lose interest with following through on home programming.

Anonymous

Thanks for your questions. Parent training is a particular interest of mine so I definitely have some resources and/or ideas you might be interested in. When it comes to parent training in ABA, the Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) model fits ABA practices very nicely within families and their community.  Also, the Triple-P model is getting a lot of attention in terms of parent-training.  ABA theories fit nicely into that model as well.  

Otherwise, when it comes to parent training and follow-through, you may need to look outside the ABA literature to discover other factors that effect the quality and implementation of parent training resources.  Key areas to research as possible mediating and moderating factors in parent follow-through are the roles of parental well-being, parent stress, parental self-efficacy and parent empowerment.  Demspy & Dunst (2004) reported that the following help-giving styles are preferred by parents (and their relationship to ABA training/programming - my thoughts)

  • Being family-centered; understanding the family’s belief system, values and priorities (If the family did not identify the need or goal as a priority for them and their family, they are probably not invested in generalizing the programming you are trying to do with their child)
  • Collaborating with the family on what to do; avoid the “expert model” (Parents do not like to be told what to do or how they should run their household.  Follow-through with ABA strategies is best when the parent has a say in which strategy to use and it has been accommodated for the home environment, family routines etc.)
  • Encouragement of family having the final say (We offer the resources and tools but the parent tells us what gets implemented and what does not).
  • Reinforcing parent’s good decision making (In my experience, many parents report a lot of doubt and guilt in their parenting actions and decisions. Parents are human and also need reinforcement  - especially if the beginning of implementing a behaviour change program is variable)

Some good stress and coping models I feel are relevant/applicable are Hastings (2002) and Perry (2004). My framework is a blending of the two models. Parent training is great but it may not be accessible or taken at full value if parental resources are limited (e.g., social, emotional, financial, respite, child care etc.) and/or parent stress is high.  Until these areas are addressed, parent training may not be as valuable or beneficial to the parent or child.

Finally, some other things to consider is the dual role parents have to play. Parents did not sign up to be therapists; yet, ABA professionals can put a lot of expectations on parents that even your most highly trained behaviour analyst can have a difficult time with. For me, the biggest eye-opening experience was realizing that parents are not “non-compliant”; rather, they are doing what works for them. The contingencies or the ABCs of ABA we speak of regarding the behaviours of the clients we work with also hold true for parents.  The role of the negative reinforcement trap on parents is not to be overlooked.  If the “correct ABA thing to do” is more work and not giving the parent the outcomes they need or want in a given moment, then they will do what is easiest and has worked for them in the past just to make the difficult situation go away.  Much like how we create plans for our clients, their parents and other caregivers (e.g., support staff) also need support plans. What antecedent strategies will set-up a family for success? What are the family member’s replacement behaviours when, for example, their kid is yelling and banging on the table and all they want to do is have dinner with the family?  Parents have many responsibilities and being an ABA therapist is not one of them.  At the end of the day, if the parent has “lost interest” in the program, it means it is not working for them.  The alternative way of doing things has not been reinforced enough for their efforts to continue.  

I hope this leaves you (and others reading this) with some food for thought or some possible areas to explore further with respect to the motivational factors involved in parent training.  In the end, it’s not enough to say “Here is parent training for the taking”; but rather there needs to be more of an analysis of the dimensions and ways in which they are delivered that results in optimal benefits for the parents.  Good luck on your paper and feel free to come back with any of your findings, ideas.

References:

Dempsey, I. & Dunst, C.J.  (2004).  Help giving styles and parent empowerment in families with a young child with a disability.  Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 29 (1), 40-51.

Hastings, R.P.  (2002).  Parental stress and behaviour problems of children with developmental disability.  Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 27(3), 149-160.

Perry, A.  (2004).  A model of stress in families of children with developmental disabilities: Clinical and research implications.  Journal on Developmental Disabilities, 11(1), 1-16.

Three-Term Contingency of the Day: Have Some Gum

Antecedent: I have coffee breath and I'm about to meet up with someone.

Behaviour: I stick in a piece of gum and chew on it.

Consequence: Coffee breath goes away (negative reinforcement).

Another everyday example of negative reinforcement. Gum chewing is reinforced because it removes the unpleasant smell and experience of having coffee breath (or onion breath, garlic breath, fish breath...etc.). If the gum works, you are likely to pop another in the next time your breath stinks.

I saw you doing the breath test. Have some gum.

Four-Term Contingency Of The Day: Love My Duvet

Motivating Operation: It's cold!

Antecedent: Laying in bed, duvet is at the foot of the bed.

Behaviour: Pull up the duvet and curl up underneath it.

Consequence: Start to feel warm (positive reinforcement); feelings of being cold subside (negative reinforcement).

Here's a 4-term contingency to highlight a sensory behaviour some of us engage in. The soft, plushy and warm features of a duvet offers the reinforcers of warmth and comfort. Since these are sensations I enjoy, I am likely to make use of the duvet again. In talking to other people, I get the sense that it is mostly the women I know who love their duvet while some men (i.e., Eric) could care less for it. To them, the duvet does not provide reinforcement and may even be punishing if, "It's too hot!" is any evidence to that. In our case, it actually works out where I get more of the duvet to snuggle with, which equals more reinforcement for me!

What Do You Get For Washing The Dishes?

Washing the dishes.  Most people hate to do it; yet, in many households it is a task that just gets done.

Under what circumstances are people likely to wash their dishes? Do you wash the dishes to escape the sight and presence of dirty dishes? Or do you wash the dishes because you need a particular dish to cook or eat with? Same action, different function. The first example is maintained by negative reinforcement contingencies (i.e., washing dishes is performed because it removes something unpleasant). The second example is maintained by positive reinforcement (i.e., washing the dishes is done because you get something desirable).  

If you are someone who values a clean kitchen, then perhaps you are motivated to do the dishes right away. I would like to think the cleanliness is a motivator for me but there are many days where I’m caught washing a pot or a mug because there are no clean ones left; motivated in that moment by my need for a clean dish. Other days, I am doing the dishes because people are coming over and I wish to avoid judgement (something else we’ve been conditioned to avoid). Therefore, it is probably fair to say that my behaviour of washing the dishes is maintained by a few contingencies depending on the circumstances in that moment. 

Have you considered what drives you to do the dishes?  What patterns do you fall into? 

Three-Term Contingency of the Day: Parking Ticket

Antecedent: Arrive to a parking spot. See parking sign and the parking meter.

Behaviour: Put change into the parking meter.

Consequence: Avoid getting a parking ticket (negative reinforcement)

Here is another example of how city government has conditioned our behaviour. Those of us who are drivers are often cued by the parking signs and/or meters to pay for our parking; the result being that we avoid paying an even bigger amount of money. Of course, I'm assuming that people do this because they are motivated to pay as little money as possible as I've yet to hear of someone happy to contribute their small change for the good of the city. I think the city is banking on that being the motivation as well.