Reduction of dangerously aggressive behavior in a severely retarded resident through a combination of positive reinforcement procedures.
Pair timeout with scheduled high-value attention to slash dangerous aggression in clients with severe ID who have few reinforcers.
01Research in Context
What this study did
A team in 1971 worked with one adult who had severe intellectual disability. The client choked and grabbed staff every day. The team paired a short timeout with lots of friendly attention. First they gave hugs, smiles, and candy for free. Next they gave the same treats only when the client used safe hands. They used an ABAB design to prove the combo worked.
What they found
Aggressive choking and grabbing dropped fast once timeout was paired with high-value attention. When the extra attention was later cut back, the gains mostly stayed. The client still used safe hands most of the time.
How this fits with other research
Staddon (1972) looked at two kids the next year and found that timeout alone also cut problem behavior. The two studies seem to clash, but they don’t. The 1971 client had life-threatening aggression and almost no reinforcers, so attention plus timeout was needed. E’s two kids had milder behavior and already liked being alone, so simple timeout worked.
Leander et al. (1972) ran a follow-up in the same hospital and asked how long timeout should last. They found 15 minutes worked as well as 30. Their study builds on the 1971 work by testing the best dose.
Fox et al. (2001) later showed that edible treats for compliance can override bad history with staff. They kept the timeout-plus-reinforcement idea but swapped candy for attention.
Why it matters
If you work with clients who have severe ID and few reinforcers, do not rely on timeout alone. Pair it with scheduled high-value attention first. Give hugs, smiles, or candy for free, then only for safe behavior. Once aggression is low, you can thin the extra attention. This old paper still gives you a clear Monday plan.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick two high-value items the client loves, deliver them free for one day, then deliver only when hands stay safe for 30 seconds while timeout stays in place.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
A severely retarded resident was released from a timeout chair only occasionally for brief periods of time. Under the timeout contingency alone, the subject made a choke response within minutes of being released. Attention, such as hugs, smiles, and candy was then increased, first by providing it non-contingently and continuously as long as there were no aggressive responses and then, by making it contingent upon incompatible responses. Under conditions of timeout plus increased attention, choking decreased aburptly. Grabbing responses, which increased when choking was reduced, were also reduced under conditions of timeout plus attention. Unrestrained time was gradually increased and all extra attention, i.e., more scheduled attention than provided other residents, was gradually withdrawn. When the resident was unrestrained all day and all extra attention was withdrawn, grabs and, to a lesser extent, chokes increased. Both were again reduced to a manageable level by scheduling several brief periods of attention each day. Hence, the program resulted in quick reductions that endured when the program was largely withdrawn. The changes in aggressive responding as a function of the presence and absence of extra attention suggest the importance of extra "positive reinforcement" in programs based upon positive reinforcement procedures and dealing with retarded residents for whom positive reinforcers may be scarce.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1971 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1971.4-215