Functional analysis and treatment of severe pica.
For severe pica, functional analysis may reveal that reducing staff attention and removing protective equipment—counter-intuitive strategies—can produce large behavior reductions without aversives.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team watched one adult with severe pica in a state facility.
They ran short test sessions to see when pica happened most.
Staff gave attention, took away tasks, or left the client alone for each test.
What they found
Pica soared when staff talked to the client after each episode.
It dropped when staff stayed quiet and removed the protective helmet.
The two changes together wiped out almost every pica attempt.
How this fits with other research
Rosenthal et al. (1980) had shown that helmets stop pica but also stop social contact.
Lord et al. (1986) flipped that idea: taking the helmet away plus quiet staff worked even better.
Rojahn et al. (1987) later used water-mist punishment and got the same drop, yet the 1986 study did it without any aversive.
Morris et al. (2021) later copied the FA logic in a 55-minute home visit, proving parents can do it too.
Why it matters
You can test pica function in under an hour with no gear.
If attention fuels the behavior, try silent brief responses and remove safety gear that may signal play time.
This gives you a non-aversive plan you can teach staff or parents today.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run a 10-minute attention vs. ignore test session; if pica drops when you stay quiet, start a brief differential-attention plan and trial no helmet for that period.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
A two-phase functional analysis of a profoundly retarded 19-year-old male's pica facilitated the design of an effective intervention containing no aversive components. In the first analysis, frequent staff-client interaction resulted in 25% and 66% less pica than limited and no interaction, respectively. Paradoxical effects were obtained in the second analysis, where no protective helmet resulted in 38% and 26% less pica than the helmet with face shield and helmet without face shield, respectively. On the basis of these analyses, limited interaction and no helmet conditions were combined in an effective, staff-implemented treatment at a medium-sized institution.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1986 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1986.19-411