Analysis of unexpected disruptive effects of contingent food reinforcement on automatically maintained self-injury.

Research has identified treatment-responsive and treatment-resistant subtypes of automatically maintained self-injurious behavior (ASIB) based on patterns of responding in the functional analysis (FA) reflecting its sensitivity to disruption by alternative reinforcement, and the presence of self-restraint. Rooker et al. (2019) unexpectedly observed reductions in treatment-resistant self-injury while participants performed an operant task. The current study further examined this in nine participants with treatment-resistant ASIB in an example of discovery-based research. An operant task engendering high rates of responding (switch-pressing) to produce food, reduced self-injury across all participants, and eliminated self-injury for some participants under certain schedules. Although this finding must be replicated and evaluated over longer time periods, it provides some evidence that alternative reinforcement can disrupt self-injury in these treatment-resistant subtypes under some conditions. Reinforcer and response competition are discussed as possible mechanisms underlying these disruptive effects, as are the potential implications of these findings regarding treatment.

Sensitivity to Changing Environmental Conditions across Individuals with Subtype 2 Automatically Reinforced and Socially Reinforced Self-injury.

Automatically reinforced Subtype 2 self-injurious behavior (ASIB) has been characterized as showing insensitivity to competing reinforcement contingencies in the contexts of both functional analyses and in treatment using reinforcement alone (Hagopian, Rooker, &Yenokyan, 2018). One question is whether this insensitivity is specific to Subtype 2 ASIB as response class in these contexts or whether it is represents a generalized response tendency of the individual that is evident across other response classes. To examine this question, we compared responding on a single-operant task under changing reinforcement schedules for three individuals with Subtype 2 ASIB, relative to a comparison group of three individuals with socially reinforced SIB (which is characterized by sensitivity to changes in reinforcement contingencies). As hypothesized, all individuals showed sensitivity to changes in contingencies. These results provide preliminary support that the insensitivity of Subtype 2 ASIB is a property specific to that response class in these contexts rather than a generalized response tendency of the individual.

Further analysis of subtypes of automatically reinforced SIB: A replication and quantitative analysis of published datasets.

Hagopian, Rooker, and Zarcone (2015) evaluated a model for subtyping automatically reinforced self-injurious behavior (SIB) based on its sensitivity to changes in functional analysis conditions and the presence of self-restraint. The current study tested the generality of the model by applying it to all datasets of automatically reinforced SIB published from 1982 to 2015. We identified 49 datasets that included sufficient data to permit subtyping. Similar to the original study, Subtype-1 SIB was generally amenable to treatment using reinforcement alone, whereas Subtype-2 SIB was not. Conclusions could not be drawn about Subtype-3 SIB due to the small number of datasets. Nevertheless, the findings support the generality of the model and suggest that sensitivity of SIB to disruption by alternative reinforcement is an important dimension of automatically reinforced SIB. Findings also suggest that automatically reinforced SIB should no longer be considered a single category and that additional research is needed to better understand and treat Subtype-2 SIB.