ABA Fundamentals

Functional analysis and treatment of destructive behavior maintained by termination of "don't" (and symmetrical "do") requests.

Fisher et al. (1998) · Journal of applied behavior analysis 1998
★ The Verdict

When the usual FA shows nothing, check if "don't" requests during fun tasks spark aggression—then teach a single escape phrase.

✓ Read this if BCBAs who run functional analyses that come back flat.
✗ Skip if Practitioners already seeing clear FA differentiation.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

The team worked with two children who hit, bit, and threw things. First they ran a normal functional analysis. The results were flat—almost no problem behavior showed up.

They then watched parents at home. They saw the kids only became aggressive when an adult said "don't" during a favorite game. The researchers built a new FA that tested escape from "don't" requests. Problem behavior soared.

02

What they found

Functional communication training plus extinction cut destructive acts to near zero for both children. Each child learned one simple phrase that meant "let me keep playing."

The effect held while the phrase still produced the break. When the phrase no longer worked, problem behavior returned.

03

How this fits with other research

Dougherty et al. (1994) showed the same FCT-plus-extinction package works when one behavior has two functions. The target paper narrows the lens to a single, easy-to-miss function—escape from "don't" interruptions.

Nevill et al. (2019) later moved the same protocol into family homes. Parents delivered FCT and saw the same big drops, proving the 1998 lab result travels to real life.

Donahoe et al. (2000) asked whether kids need one mand or several. They found multiple specific mands beat a single generic one, but only when extinction was left out. The target study kept extinction in and succeeded with just one mand, showing the procedure—not the mand count—drove the change.

04

Why it matters

If your standard FA is silent, watch caregivers during highly preferred activities. A quick five-minute clip can reveal that "don't touch that" triggers the blow-up. Add an FA condition that lets the child say "I'm still playing" to escape the interruption, then teach that phrase. You may solve weeks of mystery in one afternoon.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Film the parent saying "don't" during the child's favorite iPad game; note any spike in hitting and test an FCT break request.

02At a glance

Intervention
functional communication training
Design
single case other
Sample size
2
Population
not specified
Finding
positive
Magnitude
very large

03Original abstract

We used descriptive assessment information to generate hypotheses regarding the function of destructive behavior for 2 individuals who displayed near-zero rates of problem behavior during an experimental functional analysis using methods similar to Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, and Richman (1982/1994). The descriptive data suggested that destructive behavior occurred primarily when caregivers issued requests to the participants that interfered with ongoing high-probability (and presumably highly preferred) behaviors (i.e., a "don't" or a symmetrical "do" request). Subsequent experimental analyses showed that destructive behavior was maintained by contingent termination of "don't" and symmetrical "do" requests but not by termination of topographically similar "do" requests. These results suggested that destructive behavior may have been maintained by positive reinforcement (i.e., termination of the "don't" request allowed the individual to return to a highly preferred activity). Finally, a treatment (functional communication training plus extinction) developed on the basis of these analyses reduced destructive behavior to near-zero levels.

Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1998 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1998.31-339