Functional analysis and extinction of different behavior problems exhibited by the same individual.

The team ran a functional analysis on one person who showed several problem behaviors. They wanted to know which behavior was kept going by attention, tangibles, or escape.

Next they tried two kinds of extinction. One type matched the real function. The other type ignored a different function. They watched which extinction actually cut the behavior.

Only the matched extinction dropped the target behavior. The unmatched extinction did nothing. The behavior stayed high when the consequence did not match its true purpose.

Whitehouse et al. (2014) looked like a contradiction at first. They gave kids any fun item and nail-biting still fell. Their trick was non-contingent reinforcement, not extinction. Fun items worked because they gave the kids something else to do, not because they removed the old payoff.

O'Reilly et al. (2009) extends the same idea to tangibles. They let kids play with the desired item before work. The satiation almost erased tangible-maintained problem behavior. Together the studies show you can either cut the payoff (extinction) or front-load it (satiation) as long as you honor the same function.

Lattal et al. (2024) adds a warning. Their review says extinction can bring back old behaviors later (resurgence). Using the exact function match, as Wilkinson et al. (1998) did, keeps that risk lower than using a blanket ignore.

Before you place a behavior on extinction, run a quick functional analysis. Pick the consequence that truly feeds the behavior and withhold only that one. If the behavior is escape-maintained, stop giving breaks after the problem. If it is attention-maintained, stop talking. Do not ignore everything; ignore the right thing. You will see faster drops and fewer flare-ups later.