On the effects of "quality" of attention in the functional analysis of destructive behavior.
Tailor the attention in your FA to the exact type caregivers report, and unclear functions often snap into focus.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Two children with intellectual disability showed destructive behavior. Their standard attention FA condition gave no clear answer.
The team first asked caregivers what kind of attention the child usually gets after problem behavior. They also watched home routines. Then they built a new FA condition that matched that exact kind of attention.
What they found
When the FA used the real-life style of attention, the data finally showed a clear attention function. Destructive behavior rose only in that matched condition.
The tweak turned an inconclusive FA into a useful one for both kids.
How this fits with other research
Busch et al. (2010) ran a similar fix. They swapped generic attention for the child’s favorite conversational topics and also got a clear attention function. Together the two papers show: if the basic condition fails, test the specific content or style the child actually receives.
Hood et al. (2019) faced a different FA hurdle—therapist safety stopped them from withholding reactions. They used a concurrent-operant test instead. Both studies prove you can bend FA procedures and still learn the true reinforcer.
Romani (2025) shows the flip side: richer attention makes behavior resurge later. So picking the right quality matters not just for clarity today, but for relapse risk tomorrow.
Why it matters
Next time your attention condition looks flat, pause and interview the caregiver. Ask, "What exactly do you do when he hits?" Then run a short probe using that same reaction—reprimands, soothing, silly faces, whatever they said. Five minutes of matching real life can save hours of guesswork and give you a clean function to build your treatment on.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a five-minute caregiver interview to your FA prep, then run one extra condition that delivers the described attention verbatim.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Two young children with mental retardation displayed inconclusive patterns of destructive behavior when a functional analysis was conducted using the procedures described by Iwata et al. (1982/1994). A second functional analysis incorporated modifications to the social attention condition that were based on interview data from care providers and descriptive observations. Results of the modified social attention condition indicated that a specific "quality" of attention was needed to identify the maintaining contingency for destructive behavior within an experimental analysis. Results are discussed in terms of considerations for further assessment when traditional analog functional analysis conditions are ineffective in isolating maintaining contingencies for destructive behavior.
Research in developmental disabilities, 1999 · doi:10.1016/s0891-4222(98)00031-6