Association for Behavior Analysis International

Researchers have defined compliant and noncompliant behavior in several ways. For example, Cook, Rapp, and Schulze (2015) suggested that compliance can be broken down into two subtypes; active or passive. Active compliance involves a specific response requirement while passive involves teaching tolerance of a context. Treating compliant behavior may pose challenges unique to the type and function of the noncompliant counter-behavior. The current symposium will present three papers focused on refining the way behavior analysts define and treat compliance across diverse populations. The first paper focuses on a specific type of compliance, quiet compliance, and how it may be taught to typically developing adjudicated adolescents who receive treatment in secure residential facilities. Results showed that using a differential reinforcement of low rates (DRL) procedure to treat quiet compliance as its own unique behavior was effective for seven adjudicated adolescents. The second paper compared the delivery of positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement to treat escape-maintained behavior. Results suggested that the positive reinforcement condition was most effective to reduce problem behavior. The third paper compared the efficacy of time based or completion based structured schedules. Researchers will discuss results with respect to individual differences.

Board Certified Behavior Analysts

Previous research has found that problem behavior maintained by escape can be successfully treated using the delivery of preferred items contingent upon compliance, in the absence of escape extinction. In the current study, we compared the delivery of positive reinforcement (a nonfunctional intervention) to negative reinforcement (a functional intervention) to treat escape-maintained problem behavior (i.e., aggression, self-injury) among three children with intellectual disabilities. We evaluated two positive reinforcement conditions: one in which a preferred edible item was delivered contingent upon compliance and one in which a preferred tangible item was delivered contingent upon compliance. Escape extinction was not used. Results suggest that the positive reinforcement condition in which a preferred tangible item was delivered contingent upon compliance was most effective to reduce problem behavior.

The use of structured schedules is one antecedent-based strategy that can be helpful in reducing problem behavior and increasing compliance exhibited by students with autism spectrum and other developmental and intellectual disorders. While this approach is an often-used strategy, it is possible that variations in its implementation may contribute to individual success. In the current investigation, the work portions of a structured schedule were implemented in two distinct manners. In one arrangement, work was presented for a fixed amount of time (e.g., 5 min). In a second arrangement, a specific amount of work (e.g., one worksheet) was presented to the student. Work ended when either the time criterion was met or the work requirement was met in the respective conditions. The relative effects of the two work requirement conditions were evaluated using single subject reversal experimental design. Data were collected on problem behavior and compliance exhibited across work arrangements. Results are discussed with respect to individual differences that may contribute to the relative success or failure of this type of antecedent-based intervention.