An evaluation of three methods of saying "no" to avoid an escalating response class hierarchy.
Give an equal substitute or a work-first cue when you deny a tangible to stop escalation cold.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Charles et al. (2011) tested three ways to tell a child "no" when he wanted a toy.
All kids had autism and their tantrums were kept strong by getting the item.
The team used an ABAB design to compare each denial style.
What they found
Saying "no" and giving a different, equally liked toy stopped escalation.
Saying "no" and telling the child "first work, then toy" also kept tantrums low.
A plain "no" with a long reason let problem behavior climb again.
How this fits with other research
DucharmeJDougherty et al. (1994) warned that extinction alone can spark a burst; Charles shows two add-ons that prevent the burst.
Saini et al. (2016) paired extinction with response blocking for self-stim behavior; Charles pairs extinction with an alternative or a work rule for tangible behavior.
The 2011 data update the 1994 advice: plan what the child can do instead of only blocking the old response.
Why it matters
Next time access must end, script one of the two safe denials before you speak. Have a matched toy ready or state the clear work-first cue. You will block the tantrum chain before it starts and keep teaching time on track.
Get CEUs on This Topic — Free
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Pick a backup toy or a short task and have it in hand before you tell the child "no" today.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
We evaluated the effects of three different methods of denying access to requested high-preference activities on escalating problem behavior. Functional analysis and response class hierarchy (RCH) assessment results indicated that 4 topographies of problem behaviors displayed by a 13-year-old boy with high-functioning autism constituted an RCH maintained by positive (tangible) reinforcement. Identification of the RCH comprised the baseline phase, during which computer access was denied by saying "no" and providing an explanation for the restriction. Two alternative methods of saying "no" were then evaluated. These methods included (a) denying computer access while providing an opportunity to engage in an alternative preferred activity and (b) denying immediate computer access by arranging a contingency between completion of a low-preference task and subsequent computer access. Results indicated that a hierarchy of problem behavior may be identified in the context of denying access to a preferred activity and that it may be possible to prevent occurrences of escalating problem behavior by either presenting alternative options or arranging contingencies when saying "no" to a child's requests.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2011 · doi:10.1901/jaba.2011.44-83