Assessment & Research

An evaluation of the types of attention that maintain problem behavior.

Kodak et al. (2007) · Journal of applied behavior analysis 2007
★ The Verdict

Test each kind of attention separately in your FA, because behavior-specific praise, tickles, or even scolds can maintain problem behavior while generic praise does nothing.

✓ Read this if BCBAs who run or supervise functional analyses in clinic, school, or home settings.
✗ Skip if Practitioners looking solely for intervention protocols; this paper is assessment-only.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Kodak et al. (2007) ran a functional analysis to see if different kinds of attention keep problem behavior alive. They tested three types: general praise, behavior-specific praise, and playful tickles. Each type was given alone so the team could spot which one really fed the behavior.

Sessions looked like standard FAs, but the ‘attention’ condition changed each time. No extra meds, toys, or tasks were added. The goal was simple: find out if ‘attention’ is too broad a label.

02

What they found

Different attention forms produced different amounts of problem behavior. Behavior-specific praise and tickles kept the behavior high, while general praise did far less. The team showed that the form of attention, not just its presence, matters.

In short, not all social praise is equal. You may need to test each flavor separately before you write your behavior plan.

03

How this fits with other research

Dicesare et al. (2005) extends this idea by showing that a child’s medication status can flip whether attention even works as a reinforcer. When the child took methylphenidate, the same attention that once maintained disruption no longer did. So both the type of attention and the child’s biological state shape FA results.

Melanson et al. (2025) offers a quicker, modern route. Their sensitivity tests still pull out social reinforcers, including attention, but take far less time than a full FA. Think of it as a streamlined grandchild of Tiffany’s detailed approach.

Jolliffe et al. (1999) sounds like a contradiction at first: they found FAs unreliable across weeks. Tiffany’s work answers that worry by saying, ‘Check that you tested the right reinforcer in the first place.’ Tiny condition tweaks, like splitting attention into sub-types, can boost stability.

04

Why it matters

If you run one ‘attention’ condition and see no effect, do not assume attention is off the hook. Break it apart: try labeled praise, hugs, jokes, even reprimands. One of them may be the true fuel. Also, re-test after med changes, and consider a brief sensitivity test if time is short. These small moves sharpen your FA and save weeks of guesswork.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Add a second attention condition to your FA today—try labeled praise or light reprimands—and compare response rates.

02At a glance

Intervention
functional analysis
Design
single case other
Finding
not reported

03Original abstract

Although previous research indicates that certain types of attention (i.e., statements related to behavior, tickles) may be differentially reinforcing, only one or two forms of attention are typically provided contingent on problem behavior during the attention condition in experimental functional analyses. In the present investigation, various forms of attention were provided contingent on problem behavior to identify the influence of each form of attention. Results indicated that the attention forms affected problem behavior differently; these outcomes are discussed in terms of their implications for assessment and treatment.

Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2007 · doi:10.1901/jaba.2007.43-06