Treatment of self-injurious behavior. Contingent versus noncontingent positive practice overcorrection.

The team worked with three clients who hit or bit themselves.

They used an ABAB reversal design.

In one phase the clients did positive practice only after SIB. In another phase they did the same drills on a fixed schedule, no matter what.

The question: does the practice itself stop SIB, or does the contingency matter?

When practice followed SIB, the behavior dropped to near zero within two days.

When the same practice was given on a schedule, SIB stayed high.

Only the contingent version worked.

Rayfield et al. (1982) showed the same rule with protective equipment. Gear cut SIB only when it was put on right after the act.

Hayes et al. (1975) and Stokes et al. (1980) already proved contingent punishment works, but they never tested the same act both ways. Kohler et al. (1985) closes that gap.

Van Hanegem et al. (2014) looks like a contradiction at first. They found contingent reinforcement beats non-contingent delivery for escape behavior. Same pattern, but with rewards instead of punishment. The two studies together show the rule is general: contingency drives change, not the item or task itself.

If you use overcorrection, response cost, or extra practice, deliver it only after the target behavior. Giving the consequence on a schedule wastes time and can confuse the client. Check your plan today: if the arrow between behavior and consequence is broken, fix it before the next session.