A review of environmental enrichment as treatment for problem behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement

Gover et al. (2019) looked at every paper that used environmental enrichment for problem behavior that happens for its own sake. They wanted to know how often enrichment alone worked.

They pulled studies from 1980 to 2017 and counted how many cases showed clear drops in behavior.

Enrichment by itself helped in only 41 out of 100 cases. That is less than half.

When teams added prompting, reinforcement, or response blocking, success jumped. Packages beat solo enrichment.

Vascelli et al. (2022) later tested enrichment plus mild punishment in a classroom. They saw the same pattern: enrichment alone was weak, but the combo crushed hand-mouthing while kids kept playing with toys and peers.

Lang et al. (2010) reviewed skin-picking studies and also found single tactics limp; packages won. These studies do not clash—they stack. Each one repeats the same rule: add something else to enrichment.

Saini et al. (2019) looked at feeding problems and saw no bonus from doing a full functional analysis. That feels opposite, but it is not. Feeding issues are usually socially maintained, so enrichment is not the fix there. Gover’s paper is about automatic behavior—different engine, different toolkit.

If a client paces, rocks, or hums for sensory payoff, do not stop at giving fidgets or music. Layer in response blocking, differential reinforcement, or brief punishment if your setting allows. The review says you double your odds when you pair, and newer single-case work keeps proving it. Start enrichment, then add one more lever.