Some effects of praise during the escape condition of the functional analysis

Weyman et al. (2021) added praise while five kids with autism were in the escape part of a functional analysis. They wanted to see if nice words would lower problem behavior and raise compliance.

Each child still got the usual break from tasks, but now the therapist slipped in praise like 'nice try' during the break. The team counted both problem behavior and how often the child followed the next instruction.

Praise did not cut problem behavior at all. Rates stayed the same as in the regular escape condition.

Yet three of the five kids started following more instructions right after the praised breaks. Compliance rose even though the behavior kept happening.

Lancioni et al. (2009) warned that small therapist moves can accidentally feed problem behavior. Their earlier work showed that extra social chatter before the task made behavior worse. Weyman’s team proves the same point: social words can shift client responding even when you think ‘escape’ is the only thing in play.

Horner (1994) looked at the flip side. That study used heavy early praise plus fading demands and slashed problem behavior for most students. The difference is that H also changed how demands were delivered, while Weyman kept the task rules the same. The two papers together show that praise alone changes compliance, but you need demand changes to cut the behavior itself.

Leander et al. (1972) already showed that steady praise on a fixed schedule can boost a seventh-grader’s math work. Weyman extends that idea to kids with autism and to functional-analysis conditions, linking nice words to better task following across very different settings.

If you sprinkle praise into an escape condition, you may walk away thinking ‘it’s not escape’ because the child now complies. But the problem behavior is still escape-maintained; you just masked it. Run your FA clean first, then add praise later during treatment so you do not blur the true function.