RESUMO
In the present study we hypothesized that the self-injurious behavior (SIB) of a 12-year-old male diagnosed as having autism and severe mental retardation was maintained by automatic reinforcement. Further, we hypothesized SIB served a sensory reinforcement function related to sensation at the skin surface. The participant engaged in high rates of SIB in the form of self-slapping. A functional analysis resulted in undifferentiated findings. Additional observations indicated that SIB occurred only to exposed skin surfaces. To test for a sensory function, we applied a topical anesthetic to the participant's skin. SIB was reduced by 20 to 60% after application of the dermal anesthetic. These results support an automatic reinforcement hypothesis. Implications for treatment are discussed.
Assuntos
Anestésicos Locais/uso terapêutico , Lidocaína/uso terapêutico , Prilocaína/uso terapêutico , Comportamento Autodestrutivo/prevenção & controle , Administração Tópica , Anestésicos Locais/administração & dosagem , Transtorno Autístico/complicações , Criança , Humanos , Lidocaína/administração & dosagem , Combinação Lidocaína e Prilocaína , Masculino , Prilocaína/administração & dosagem , Reforço Psicológico , Comportamento Autodestrutivo/complicaçõesRESUMO
Physical guidance is a strategy commonly used for noncompliance. In two experiments, we evaluated reinforcing effects of physical guidance. Experiment 1 include three individuals with developmental disabilities who were noncompliant with tasks. Anecdotal observations indicated physical contact was highly reinforcing, and a functional analysis identified attention as a reinforcer for problem behavior. Two conditions compared physical guidance following noncompliance and no physical guidance following noncompliance. Results showed noncompliance increased for all three participants when physical guidance followed noncompliance. The second experiment empirically evaluated the function of noncompliance prior to examining the effect of physical guidance on noncompliance. A functional analysis, conducted with two participants, indicated noncompliance served an escape function for one and an attention function for the other. Comparisons of physical guidance and no physical guidance indicated physical guidance resulted in decreased noncompliance for the participant with an escape function but increased noncompliance for the participant with an attention function.
