Developing and demonstrating inhibitory stimulus control over repetitive behavior

Tiger et al. (2017) worked with two kids with autism who showed lots of hand flapping. They wanted to teach the kids to stop flapping when they saw a red card.

First, the team paired the red card with gentle response blocking. When the card was out, the kids could not flap. When the card was gone, they could flap freely. After a few days, the red card alone stopped the flapping, even without blocking.

The red card became a stop sign. Flapping dropped to near zero as soon as the card appeared. The kids still flapped when the card was absent, so the card did not kill the behavior forever.

Most important, the stop sign worked in new rooms and with new people. No extra blocking or treats were needed.

Harrison et al. (1975) first showed this trick with pigeons. They proved that a negative stimulus can suppress behavior without errors. Tiger et al. moved the same idea to kids with autism and stereotypy.

Charlop et al. (1990) seemed to say the opposite. They let kids earn short flapping breaks for correct work and saw good results. The studies differ because H et al. used flapping as a tiny reward, while Tiger et al. removed all rewards and simply signaled stop.

Gutierrez et al. (1998) and Emmelkamp et al. (1986) both faded physical restraints to cut self-injury. Tiger et al. faded response blocking to cut stereotypy. All three show that careful stimulus fading can transfer control away from adult hands.

You can create a portable stop sign for stereotypy in one week. Pick a clear stimulus like a red card. Pair it with brief response blocking, then fade the blocking. Once the stimulus alone works, take it to the lunchroom, the bus line, or grandma's house. The child learns self-control without punishment or a bag of chips.