Generality and side effects of overcorrection.
Overcorrection aimed at one self-stim can quietly cut other, unrelated misbehaviors while lifting appropriate play.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team used overcorrection to stop one self-stim behavior in preschool kids.
They ran an ABAB design: baseline, treat, return to baseline, treat again.
Hand and foot overcorrection were used on different topographies.
What they found
The treated behavior dropped, but so did other misbehaviors that looked nothing alike.
Appropriate play and sitting rose as stereotypy fell.
One procedure gave a two-for-one payoff.
How this fits with other research
Logue et al. (1986) saw the opposite. Sensory extinction only cut behaviors that felt the same to the child. The difference is method: overcorrection adds effort; extinction only removes payoff.
Reid et al. (2003) looks like a clash. They gave free toys and saw stereotypy fight harder. Their kids had autism and automatic reinforcement; the 1974 sample did not. Population and function explain the split.
Heinicke et al. (2012) later matched the pattern. Fixed-time NCR for one response class dropped every member of that class, showing again that treating one move can quiet the whole dance.
Why it matters
You can run overcorrection on the loudest stereotypy and expect bonus drops in other, different-looking misbehaviors. Track all responses for a few days; if play and sitting rise, you just gained free treatment hours.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick the child’s top stereotypy, apply five-minute overcorrection, and tally every other stereotypy and play response across the next three sessions.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The effects and side effects of overcorrection for self-stimulatory behaviors of two children in a specialized day-care program were evaluated. For one child, a "hand" overcorrection procedure involving arm and hand exercises was introduced contingent upon inappropriate hand movements and later contingent upon inappropriate foot movements. After "hand" overcorrection was withdrawn for inappropriate foot movements, a "foot" overcorrection procedure involving foot and leg exercises was introduced contingent upon inappropriate foot movements. For a second child, the "hand" overcorrection procedure was introduced contingent upon inappropriate hand movements during a free-play period, and later contingent upon inappropriate vocalizations at naptime. "Hand" overcorrection was withdrawn and then re-introduced sequentially for both behaviors. Several concurrent behaviors were measured to assess multiple effects of treatment. Results for both children indicated the "hand" overcorrection procedure suppressed inappropriate hand movements and inappropriate behaviors that were topographically dissimilar. In addition, inverse relationships were observed between the second child's inappropriate hand movements and appropriate toy usage during free play and between his inappropriate vocalizations and inappropriate foot movements during naptime. Results suggest that overcorrection procedures that are effective for one behavior can be used to reduce the frequency of topographically different behaviors. This finding is discussed in terms of its practical implications for therapists.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1974 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1974.7-385