Sequential and matching analyses of self-injurious behavior a case of overmatching in the natural environment.

One boy who hit himself was watched for 30 hours across two months. Staff wrote down every hit and what happened right before and after. No one changed the environment; they just tracked real life.

The team then ran two math checks. First, they looked at the order of events (sequential analysis). Second, they used the matching law to see if hits increased when attention came faster and thicker than when it did not.

Hits and staff attention moved together. The math line was steeper than 1.0, a sign of overmatching. This means the boy’s self-injury was even more sensitive to attention than lab data usually predict.

The pattern stayed steady day after day without any planned tests. Natural routines alone showed the function.

White (1979) pooled 103 lab studies and showed most choice data fall slightly under the matching line. The new case flips that picture: in real life, one child overmatched, taking extra advantage of attention.

Taylor et al. (1993) warned that plain descriptive notes can miss the difference between attention and escape functions. Matching math plus sequential checks helped avoid that trap here.

Baer (1974) taught us that shallow slopes mean poor discrimination. The steep slope seen now hints the boy could tell exactly when attention was coming and squeezed every drop out of it.

You can run matching and sequential analyses on everyday ABC data to see if attention, escape, or toys truly drive self-injury. No extra sessions, no wires, just the notes you already collect. When the slope tops 1.0, plan rich, quick attention for safe behavior and lean, delayed attention after hits; the numbers show the child will notice the difference.