Putative behavioral history effects and aggression maintained by escape from therapists.

Fox et al. (2001) worked with three clients who hit, kicked, or bit their usual therapists. The team wanted to know if the clients' bad history with those staff made the aggression worse.

They added a simple rule. When the client followed a request and kept hands and feet to self, they got a bite of favorite food right away. No extra punishment or extinction was used.

Aggression dropped to the same low level seen with brand-new therapists. The edible reward for calm compliance wiped out the extra aggression that had built up toward the familiar staff.

In plain words, the bad history lost its power once the client could earn candy for staying safe.

Kahng et al. (1999) and Au-Yeung et al. (2015) ran similar edible-versus-break tests. All three studies show the same bottom line: a bite of food beats a short break when problem behavior is escape-maintained.

Carter (2010) went one step further and proved you can skip escape extinction entirely. That backs up R et al.'s choice to leave extinction out.

Tereshko et al. (2021) pooled 21 feeding studies that also used only antecedent and reinforcement tricks. The review places R et al. inside a bigger club of 'no-extinction' successes, even though the target paper dealt with aggression, not food refusal.

If a client acts worse with certain staff, don't assume you must re-pair or ride out extinction bursts. Instead, load the first trials with high-value edibles delivered immediately for compliance plus zero aggression. The history effect can melt in one session, saving time and bruises.