A behavior-analytic conceptualization of the side effects of psychotropic medication.

La Malfa et al. (2004) wrote a theory paper. They asked: how do side effects from psychiatric drugs change behavior?

They said the pill effects can act like MOs or SDs. That means the drug can make reinforcers stronger or weaker. It can also become a cue for new behavior.

The paper gives no data. It only maps out ideas. Side effects might raise or lower motivation. They might also signal when certain responses will pay off.

Spriggs et al. (2016) tested the idea. They looked at 37 old FAs where kids took meds. In 29 cases the drugs cut problem behavior. In 4 cases the function flipped. This backs up G's claim that meds can work as MOs.

Dicesare et al. (2005) ran a tiny ABAB study. One boy's disruptiveness was attention-maintained only when he skipped his methylphenidate. On the pill, the same attention no longer worked as reinforcement. Again, the med acted like an abolishing operation.

Edrisinha et al. (2011) showed the same pattern with food instead of pills. They gave or removed food before sessions. Problem behavior rose with an EO and fell with an AO. The method differs, but the MO principle matches G's view.

Whenever a client starts, stops, or changes a psychotropic med, rerun your FA. The pill might have turned attention into nothing or made escape worth more. If you keep the old plan, you could blame yourself for failure that is really chemistry. Track side effects like you track sleep or diet. Write them in your MO column, not your excuse column.