Obtained versus programmed reinforcement practical considerations in the treatment of escape-reinforced aggression.

LeAnne and her team worked with children with autism who hit or kicked to get out of tasks.

The kids already had a way to ask for a break: a simple picture exchange or sign.

The researchers kept two response options open at the same time. A child could mand for a break or use aggression.

They then added extra prompts so the mand earned breaks more often than the hitting did.

When the mand paid off more, aggression dropped to almost zero.

Break requests went up and stayed up.

No new punishers were added; the team only shifted how often each response worked.

Leung et al. (1998) saw the same drop in aggression, but they added punishment when extinction alone stalled. LeAnne kept the gentler path by letting the environment, not a punisher, do the work.

Falcomata et al. (2012) later showed you can thin the payoff schedule after FCT and still keep aggression low. LeAnne’s focus on real-time reinforcement balance set the stage for that next step.

Sumter et al. (2020) gave kids another functional reward during long waits. LeAnne’s extra prompts and Sumter’s extra rewards both keep the obtained reinforcement ratio favorable without extra punishment.

You can cut severe escape aggression without punishment. Count what the client actually earns each session. If mands lag behind problem behavior, drop in three to five extra prompts per chance until the ratio flips. Track for one week; most BCBAs see the swing within days.