Reference no: EM133877825

Assignment:

Iwata et al. (1994) discuss the functions of escape, attention and automatic reinforcement. Another condition that could be considered is access to a tangible.

In order to determine if this condition is the function of a behavior, a functional analysis can be performed. O'Neill et al. (2015) suggest two different design strategies which could be used. For the purpose of this discussion, I will outline the use of a reversal design. In this design, baseline data will be collected where the tangible is not present in the room and behavior will be recorded. Next the tangible will be available. The tangible will only be given to the client if the behavior of concern is displayed. The third condition will remove the tangible from the room again and the fourth condition will again present the tangible.

Potential barriers to the analysis of the behavior might include the use of a non motivational tangible and interference of attention given be the person presenting the tangible. To mitigate the barrier of a non motivational tangible, a preference assessment could be conducted prior to the functional analysis. To attempt to mitigate the attention provided by the person delivering the tangible, a different person should provide the tangible for each trial and the person should be trained to provide minimal attention in the form of eye contact, facial expressions, or verbal communication.

• What type of reinforcement contingency does the hypothesized variable represent?
• Are the test and control conditions capable of identifying whether or not the variable is responsible for the maintenance of the target behavior? Why or why not?
• What ethical precautions should be taken when conducting a functional analysis of this behavior?