researchers have experimented not only with conditions that might set the stage for a problem behavior, but also with conditions that they suspected might follow a problem behavior (Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman & Richman, 1982). This research helped demonstrate that what happens before a behavior can create a motivation for something and that engaging in a problem behavior can result in obtaining what is wanted. To illustrate, consider the boy in our example above who wanted to escape his work: the teacher approaching his desk with work materials created a motivation for him to be someplace else. Hitting his teacher resulted in him being sent to the principal’s office, thereby avoiding his work. The consequences of the behavior were critical to the development of the behavior problem.
Brian Iwata and his colleagues (1982) demonstrated this idea empirically. They placed people in scenarios that mimicked these supposedly naturally occurring conditions and measured the effect on their behavior. For example, they might withhold attention from a study participant while she played with toys, but then provide attention when she performed the problem behavior (self-injury). Upon the occurrence of self-injury, the experimenter would immediately return his attention to the girl in the form of social disapproval (e.g., “Don’t do that; you’ll hurt yourself!”). When the consequences for the behavior were presented consistently in this way, the researchers were able to reliably produce stable patterns of the problem behavior. Using this counterintuitive approach, the researchers replicated what they believed was taking place in the real world and leading to learning. Their results showed that their hypothesis was correct: the study participants were learning these problem behaviors based on their consequences.
Iwata and his colleagues also identified a special kind of behavior that is learned through internal cues and consequences. These behaviors occur because they feel good or are inherently enjoyable for the person performing them. The conditions that trigger these behaviors and the consequences that maintain them occur inside of the individual, and thus are more complex to assess or control. Everyday examples of this type of behavior might include scratching an itch or taking a pain reliever. An observer cannot see the itch or the headache, nor can she document the consequences of removal of the itch or the headache. However, these behaviors are learned based upon the same principles as externally controlled behaviors, and numerous strategies exist to help address them.
By examining patterns of what happens before and after problem behaviors, Iwata and his colleagues were able to identify a number of communicative messages that challenging behaviors might convey. In other words, they identified the purposes that these behaviors were serving for the individuals performing them. These different purposes that behaviors serve are called “functions” of behavior and are described in Chapter 2. A quest to identify the functions of different problem behaviors was born, leading to the emergence of the field we now know as “functional behavior assessment.”
Why Are Problematic Behaviors So Common among Individuals with ASD?
While all people, children and adults, typically developing or disabled, may have behavior problems, they are more common among individuals with autism spectrum disorders. When you think about the specific areas of disability associated with this group of disorders, the reasons for this relationship become clear.
Difficulties with Communication Skills
First of all, individuals with autism spectrum disorders often have impairments in communication. Consider Anthony, described in the Introduction. Recall that Anthony was nonvocal. Also recall that his family distracted him from head banging with a special box of beads. In order to keep the beads exciting for Anthony, his family had made the beads off-limits for him at other times. Therefore, Anthony was repeatedly exposed to the following sequence:
1. I have no beads.
2. I bang my head.
3. I get beads.
Anthony’s head banging brings beads into his environment. Since Anthony lacks the communication skills to ask for the beads, he may have learned that banging his head is the best way for him to communicate a request for them. Even if he could request them some other way, they are off limits to him unless he is banging his head.
In a similar scenario, a colleague worked with one nonverbal student who engaged in aggressive behaviors so severe that numerous staff who worked with him had required medical attention for problems as serious as a broken nose. For safety reasons, each time he became aggressive, he was restrained in a cushiony restraint on a soft mat. A functional behavior assessment revealed that his aggressive behaviors were actually his way of requesting access to this restraint. To reduce his aggression, he was given a picture card that he could use to request the restraint. Once he mastered this communication, his aggressive behaviors virtually disappeared.
This is not to say that individuals with ASDs who can speak or sign are immune from exhibiting problem behaviors. Some people can communicate but doing so is so challenging that a problem behavior is simpler. For example, a child with communicative challenges who would like a break from her class work faces two options: 1) Identify a cue from the teacher that it is okay to raise your hand, raise your hand, wait to be called on, formulate a sentence requesting a break, and wait to see whether the teacher says yes or no; or 2) Bang the materials on your desk loudly and get sent immediately to time-out. The latter behavior seems much more efficient for the child.
Difficulties with Social Skills
Individuals with autism spectrum disorders also have social skills deficits. This means they do not engage in social interaction as easily as other people. Similarly, they may not be as skilled at interpreting social responses from others. Therefore, any social reaction they evoke may be rewarding for them. Consider Grace, our second grader who was assaulting her peers. Lacking the skills to have more meaningful social interactions, Grace may settle for the yelling and hitting that her peers are doing in response to her aggression if she cannot evoke friendly responses.
I (BG) was called in to consult with teachers about a preschooler with autism who was exhibiting a similar behavior pattern. This child was a bit larger than the other students in his segregated preschool classroom and was also more interested in socializing than his classmates were. He would often try to approach them appropriately, but would get no response. He then moved on to “belly-bopping” them, bumping them roughly with his belly. Unfortunately, this inappropriate behavior was sure to get his classmates’ attention. Although the attention was often in the form of crying or yelling, for the “belly-bopper,” this was preferable to no response at all. Despite his behavior problem, this child was transferred to an integrated preschool classroom where the other children were more socially aware. In this setting, where the other children responded to his more appropriate initiations, his “belly-bopping” disappeared without any other specific intervention.
Challenging behaviors can also stem from a child’s desire to avoid or escape social contact. Think back to Jamaal, who made odd faces or adopted strange postures whenever his peers approached him. Jamaal’s behavior quickly taught the other children to leave him alone and may have been Jamaal’s way of asking them to go away. Although Jamaal’s educational programming likely focused upon approaching other children and extending interactions, failing to teach children how to end or avoid social interactions is a common teaching oversight. Similarly, Robert, the teenager described above who swatted and poked his siblings to get them to keep their distance, could probably benefit from instruction in social skills for getting out of interactions appropriately.
Restricted Interests
Finally, a restricted
