Evaluating the effects of physical reactions on aggression via concurrent‐operant analyses

Hood and colleagues tested a new way to run a functional analysis when a child hits or kicks. They let the therapist give a safe physical reaction right away instead of staying still and silent.

The team set up two choices at the same time. One choice produced the reaction. The other choice produced nothing. They watched which choice the child made more often.

The concurrent-operant test showed why the child was aggressive. The child picked the option that gave the physical reaction. This told the team the reaction itself was the pay-off.

The method worked even though the therapist never had to freeze and wait for blows to land.

Rutland et al. (1996) already showed that what happens right before the FA can change results. Hood et al. add a second tweak: change what happens during the test when safety rules out the usual silent control.

Konstantareas et al. (1999) fixed unclear FA attention conditions by changing the kind of attention given. Hood et al. use the same idea but swap in a concurrent choice instead of a new attention style.

Busch et al. (2010) found aggression could be reinforced by specific talk topics. Hood et al. widen the lens: any physical reaction, not just words, can be the reinforcer.

If you work with severe aggression, you no longer have to choose between an unsafe FA and no FA at all. Run a two-choice test: one button or card gets a safe block or brief hold, the other gets nothing. The child’s preference reveals the function while keeping everyone safe. Monday morning, add a second response option to your aggression FA and let the data tell you if the reaction itself is the prize.