Demand-related tantrums. Conceptualization and treatment.
Keep the demand, add the fun, watch escape tantrums fade and compliance grow.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Three children with developmental delay threw tantrums every time an adult gave a demand.
The team first watched each child to see why the tantrums happened. They saw the kids used the fits to escape work.
Next they paired the same hard tasks with strong, fun reinforcers. They never took the work away when a tantrum started.
What they found
Tantrums dropped fast and stayed low. All three kids also started following directions more often.
The change was big and lasted the whole study.
How this fits with other research
Fullana et al. (2007) copied the idea with preschoolers. They swapped toys for coupons and still got the same jump in compliance.
Owen et al. (2021) later asked kids and parents which plan they liked. Kids picked the G-approach (pair demands with fun stuff). Parents wanted escape extinction (no break at all). The newer study shows you can blend both views by chaining schedules.
Festinger et al. (1996) worked with kids whose problem behavior was about escape AND wanting attention. They had to add social play to the break, not just toys. This extends G’s work: when more than one payoff is in play, add the second reinforcer to the break.
Why it matters
If a learner fights tasks, test whether the fight buys escape. If it does, don’t drop the task. Keep the demand and add a strong reinforcer the child already loves. This simple pair-up can turn work time from a battle into a preferred event.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run a 3-min demand trial with a favorite item in view; deliver it right after the first correct response and ignore any protest.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Tantrums constitute a serious behavior problem frequently manifested by children in educational settings. Three developmentally disabled children were observed during a series of sessions in which the presence or absence of instructional demands was systematically manipulated. Tantrums occurred at a high rate when demands were presented, but rarely occurred in the absence of demands. Further, when a signal was given that demands had terminated, the rate of tantrums immediately dropped. These results were interpreted as consistent with a coercion hypothesis of tantrum control. Specifically, tantrums were conceptualized as a form of escape behavior maintained by negative reinforcement resulting from termination of an aversive stimulus; in this case, demands. A treatment was designed that attempted to reduce the aversiveness of the demand situation by introducing strongly preferred reinforcers to make tantrums nonfunctional. The treatment produced strong, sustained suppression of tantrums and increased levels of task compliance. Results were interpreted as providing evidence for the generality of coercion as an explanatory construct in childhood psychopathology and as demonstrating the heuristic value of this construct vis-a-vis the design of treatment.
Behavior modification, 1985 · doi:10.1177/01454455850094001