Association for Behavior Analysis International

Joe Lalli (1952-2001) was a productive researcher in the areas of applied behavior analysis and developmental disabilities. His work led to the development of many procedures that have become common practice in the field. Examples of his work include his research on behavioral momentum, competition between positive and negative reinforcement contingencies, descriptive assessment, response class hierarchy analyses and noncontingent reinforcement, among others. This symposium will focus on Dr. Lallis lasting impact on the field of applied behavior analysis. The first presentation describes an extension of Dr. Lallis method for evaluating response class hierarchies during the treatment of destructive behavior. The second presentation will describe Dr. Lallis development of activity schedules and the application of this procedure to decrease problem behavior in a clinic setting. The third presentation will focus on Dr. Lallis work examining competition between positive and negative reinforcement contingencies and the use of positive reinforcement as an abolishing operation for escape-maintained behavior. Professor F. Charles Mace, Joes former advisor, colleague, and long-time friend will serve as discussant and will provide a synthesis of these studies relative to Dr. Lallis contributions to the field of applied behavior analysis.

The term response class refers to a set of response topographies (e.g., self-injury, aggression) maintained by the same reinforcer (e.g., attention). Some topographies may occur more frequently than others, and their relative probabilities are influenced by variables such as response effort and rate and immediacy of reinforcement. Lalli et al. (1995) developed an approach to assess hierarchical relations between members of a response class (i.e., lower probability responses occurring primarily when higher probability responses are extinguished). Treatment in such cases often involves differential reinforcement of an alternative response combined with extinction of destructive behavior. In the current investigation, functional analysis methods were used to demonstrate that the various topographies of destructive behavior formed response classes for two participants. Following the procedures developed by Lalli et al., we then determined that the topographies of destructive behavior occurred in a hierarchical manner. In addition, when topographies of destructive behavior were placed on extinction, we observed the emergence of previously undetected prosocial responses which were then subjected to differential reinforcement in order to maintain decreases in destructive behavior. These findings will be discussed in terms of the extensions to the response class hierarchy identification procedures developed by Lalli and colleagues.

Prior investigations have shown that a promising approach to the treatment of destructive behavior maintained by negative reinforcement involves the delivery empirically derived, positive reinforcers contingent on appropriate, alternative responses, such as communication or compliance (Lomas, Fisher, & Kelley, in press). This approach is especially useful for situations in which extinction of destructive behavior is impractical (e.g., tasks requiring vocal responses that cannot be physically guided) or the target response is potentially dangerous (e.g., increases in severe SIB due to extinction bursts). In the current presentation, we will discuss data from a series of investigations illustrating the role of positive reinforcement in establishing and abolishing the effectiveness of escape as reinforcement for destructive behavior during assessment and treatment. We will show that in some cases, the termination of ongoing positive reinforcers at the start of an instructional session can establish escape as effective reinforcement for destructive behavior. We will also show that in some cases destructive behavior reinforced by escape decreases with the introduction of positive reinforcement because the participant prefers the positive reinforcer over the negative reinforcer. Finally, we will show that in other cases the positive reinforcer functions as an abolishing operation (AO) that lessens the aversiveness of the demands, thus reducing destructive behavior. Results will be discussed in terms of the effects of positive reinforcement on escape-reinforced problem behavior.