The effects of contingent and noncontingent attention on self-injury and self-restraint.

Ghaziuddin et al. (1996) worked with clients who hurt themselves and also wrapped their arms tight. The team first ran a quick functional analysis. Attention made both self-injury and self-restraint spike. Next they gave that same attention for free every 30 seconds no matter what the client did.

Free attention dropped both problems at once. Self-injury fell. Self-restraint also fell. The results said one reinforcer drove both topographies.

Konstantareas et al. (1999) later showed that tweaking the kind of attention matters. If your FA is muddy, use the exact scolding or soothing parents give at home. The 1996 study used plain attention; the 1999 study refined the quality.

Busch et al. (2010) pushed the idea further. They proved aggression can also be fed by special attention, like talking about trains. The 1996 paper opened the door for attention as a reinforcer for severe behavior; the 2010 paper widened it.

Fernand et al. (2023) now use FCT plus schedule thinning instead of free attention. Both cuts problem behavior, but FCT adds a communication response. The field moved from pure NCR to NCR plus skills.

If a client shows both SIB and self-restraint, run an FA. When attention is the reinforcer, you can treat both behaviors with one simple NCR schedule. Start with 30-second attention drops, then thin. Watch the restraint fade as the reinforcement no longer has to be earned.