Repetitive Speech and Problem Behavior: Functional Analysis of Precurrent Contingencies

The team worked with a child with autism who repeated phrases and hit his head.

They ran a special FA that tested if the hits made adults pay more attention to the repeated speech.

Each time the child hit, the adult echoed the phrase right after. That was the only condition that made both behaviors spike.

Hits were not about escape or pain. They were a ticket to get the phrase echoed.

When echoing stopped after hits, both the hitting and the repeating dropped.

The FA proved the hitting worked like a precurrent step: first hit, then get the phrase.

Hastings et al. (2001) already showed that one behavior can serve two social goals. Strohmeier adds a third layer: the first behavior opens the door for the second to be reinforced.

Hattier et al. (2011) warned that lumping topographies can fake “multiple control.” Here the team kept hitting and speech separate, so the precurrent link was clear, not a data mirage.

Fernandez et al. (2024) later checked 116 FAs and saw only rare acquisition patterns. The precurrent design in Strohmeier is one safe way to avoid teaching new problems while testing.

If your client repeats odd lines and also slaps, do not assume two functions. Run a precurrent FA: withhold the repeated phrase until after the slap. If rates jump, you have found the hidden chain. Break it by reinforcing the phrase only when the slap has not happened for 10 s. You will likely see both behaviors fade together, saving session time and bruises.