Analysis of social variables when an initial functional analysis indicates automatic reinforcement as the maintaining variable for self-injurious behavior.

The team ran a second functional analysis on a client whose first FA said the self-injury was automatic.

This time they let the client wear helmet and arm guards during the test sessions.

Same rooms, same adults, same attention, escape, alone, and play conditions—just added safety gear.

With protective equipment on, the self-injury now happened only in the attention condition.

The behavior stopped when the adult looked away and returned the moment the adult looked back.

The first FA had missed the attention function because injury pain was keeping the rate low.

Frank-Crawford et al. (2024) show the field has learned: about 70 % of recent SIB studies now use helmets or padding.

Rooker et al. (2020) add a warning—when an FA can’t tell the functions apart, clients end up with more frequent and severe injuries.

Taylor et al. (1993) ran the classic multielement FA without gear; Johnson et al. (2009) simply repeated it with gear and saw the hidden social payoff.

If your FA chart looks flat and you label the behavior “automatic,” rerun the test with helmet, gloves, or padding.

The gear keeps the client safe and lets the true reinforcement show through, saving you weeks of wrong treatment.