The concept of automatic reinforcement: implications for behavioral research in developmental disabilities.
When data say the behavior reinforces itself, drop social fixes and pick one of four sensory-level tools.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Cole (1994) wrote a think-piece, not an experiment. The paper maps why automatically reinforced problem behavior is hard to treat.
It lists four roads to try: sensory extinction, change the motivating operation, differential reinforcement, or punishment.
What they found
The author found no new data. Instead he gave BCBAs a decision tree for behaviors that keep themselves going without social payoffs.
The paper warns that classic FCT or time-out will fail because the reinforcer lives inside the response itself.
How this fits with other research
Logan et al. (2000) turned the fourth road into a real kit. They matched DRO stimuli to the exact sensory channel—sound for stereotypy, touch for SIB—and wiped out the behaviors in two boys. The 1994 map became a drivable route.
Phillips et al. (2017) shows the limits of the first road. NCR alone helped socially maintained cases, but kids whose behavior was automatically reinforced needed extra parts—exactly what Cole (1994) predicted.
Virues-Ortega et al. (2022) built a GPS for the same map. They found the FA condition with the lowest rate and used its sensory item as treatment, cutting planning time for BCBAs.
Why it matters
Next time your FA shows flat, high rates across all conditions, pull out this four-item menu instead of adding more social consequences. Start with the least intrusive road—change the MO or add matched DRO. If the behavior keeps humming, layer sensory extinction or brief punishment. The 1994 paper still saves you from spinning your wheels with FCT that can’t work.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After today’s flat FA, test one matched sensory item from the lowest-rate condition as immediate DRO.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Automatic reinforcement refers to situations in which behavior is maintained by operant mechanisms independent of the social environment. A number of difficulties exist in conducting an adequate functional analysis of automatically reinforced aberrant behavior. For example, sources of reinforcement are often difficult or impossible to identify, manipulate, or control. Further, the development of treatments is often difficult because many behavioral interventions, such as timeout, involve manipulation of the social environment--an approach that may be functionally irrelevant in the case of automatic reinforcement. This article discusses the problems inherent in the analysis of automatically reinforced behavior and reviews four classes of treatment that are compatible with that behavioral function. The four types of intervention reviewed include manipulations of establishing operations, sensory extinction, differential reinforcement, and punishment. Suggestions for future research are discussed.
Research in developmental disabilities, 1994 · doi:10.1016/0891-4222(94)90011-6