Functional analyses of undesirable behavior by nonhumans: A concise review

Rotta et al. (2023) looked at 33 papers where researchers ran functional analyses on animals. The animals were dogs, cats, primates, birds, and even a vulture.

The team asked one question: Does our FA method work the same way for animals as it does for people?

Thirty-two of the thirty-three animals showed a clear behavioral function. Attention, escape, or automatic reinforcement patterns looked just like human data.

In plain words, the FA process transfers across species.

Heath et al. (2019) and Schmidt et al. (2020) show you can test precursor behaviors instead of dangerous topographies. Rotta’s review adds animals to that same safety idea: test a mild response first.

Lambert et al. (2017) used a speeded-up, latency-based FA with kids in a hospital. Rotta’s data say the same quick probes work for pets and zoo animals, so time pressure is no excuse to skip the analysis.

Lloveras et al. (2022) remind us that some biting has no social function. Rotta’s animal cases back this up: a few FAs came out ‘undifferentiated,’ telling us to look beyond the standard test conditions.

If you work with clients who use service animals or emotional-support dogs, you now have a road map. Run brief FAs on the animal’s problem behavior the same way you would with a child. Clear functions mean you can write behavior plans that treat both the human and the animal, cutting stress for the whole family. Next time you see a dog barking for attention, test it—thirty minutes of data may give you the same clean answer you get in the clinic.