Matching analysis of socially appropriate and destructive behavior in developmental disabilities.

Hoch et al. (2007) watched three adults with intellectual disability in their day program. They tracked how often staff gave attention and how the clients split their time between good and bad behavior.

The team used matching-law math on real-time data. They wanted to see if attention alone could predict where behavior landed.

The simple equation explained 50-94% of the behavior split. When staff gave more attention, the clients shifted their behavior to match that rate.

Destructive acts rose or fell almost perfectly with how much attention followed them.

Reed et al. (2012) later tested the same math with kids who have autism. The kids also followed the matching law for reward rate, but extra lights and sounds pulled them off track. Together the two studies show the equation works for both ID and ASD, yet ASD adds a twist of stimulus bias.

Dugan et al. (1995) had already shown that attention is the top reason for challenging behavior in big disability samples. John et al. now give the exact numbers behind that link.

Avellaneda et al. (2025) sharpen the formula by letting sensitivity shift as overall reinforcement changes. The 2007 data fit the classic version, but future sessions could use the new dynamic model for even cleaner predictions.

You can plug your own tallies of attention and behavior into the matching-law calculator during a single session. If the client’s problem behavior is getting 70% of your reactions, expect it to take 70% of their time. Flip the ratio by catching good moments and the math says the behavior split will follow within minutes, not weeks.