Control of tantrum behavior by operant techniques during experimental verbal training.
Make the next task harder, not easier, right after a tantrum to make the outburst fade.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Powell et al. (1968) worked with children who had intellectual disabilities.
The kids were learning new words.
When a tantrum happened, the teacher changed the lesson difficulty right away.
Sometimes the task got easier, sometimes harder.
No timeout chair, no scolding—just a quick task switch.
What they found
Harder tasks after tantrums made tantrums drop.
Easier tasks after tantrums made tantrums rise.
The lesson itself, not a punishment, controlled the behavior.
How this fits with other research
Eisenhower et al. (2006) later used the same idea in preschool.
They added brief FA plus DRO and extinction for transition fits.
Their combo worked, showing the 1968 lab trick travels to real classrooms.
Konstantareas et al. (1999) mapped which exact task cues sparked escape.
They mixed play with work and cut problem behavior, extending the stimulus-tweak idea.
HOLZ et al. (1963) showed timeout only works if the child can still earn reinforcement another way.
W’s method skips timeout entirely and still cuts tantrums, updating the older warning.
Why it matters
You can shrink tantrums without stopping the session.
After an outburst, bump the task up one notch instead of sending the child away.
Keep the reinforcer flowing for calm work.
Try it next time a client melts down over a hard request—just make the next trial a bit tougher, not easier.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After a tantrum, swap to a slightly harder task for one trial, then return to the original level.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
A technique of controlling undesirable or disruptive behavior during an ongoing program of verbal training with a retardate is described. The technique required that the stimulus materials of the verbal training program be graded according to difficulty, i.e., in terms of the length and complexity of the stimulus materials. (This resulted in an initial grading of the stimulus materials into different levels of probability of reinforcement.) Changes by the experimenter from high-difficulty to low-difficulty stimuli for two trials contingent upon disruptive behavior increased the rate of that behavior; changes from low-difficulty to high-difficulty stimuli for two trials contingent upon disruptive behavior decreased its rate. Thus, contingent alternation of the stimulus materials of the ongoing training program controlled the frequency of undesirable behaviors within the experimental sessions. This technique may comprise an alternative to other procedures which require punishment or timeout from the ongoing program.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1968 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1968.1-237