Unmasking social functions: Outcomes from a retrospective consecutive case series of 19 applications
Add a quick protective-probe condition before you call an FA automatic—about 25 % of cases will show a treatable social function.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Kaur and her team looked back at 19 kids whose first FA said the problem behavior was automatic.
They added a short protective-probe condition. The child got the usual automatic reinforcer, but staff also gave attention or escape at the same time.
If problem behavior jumped when the social reinforcer arrived, they called it a social function.
What they found
Five of the 19 kids showed clear social control only during the protective probe.
That is about one in every four cases that would have been labeled automatic.
All five later got function-based treatment that worked.
How this fits with other research
Nevin et al. (2005) did something similar years ago. They mixed antecedents together and found hidden social functions. Kaur’s method swaps in protective contingencies instead, but the goal is the same.
Melanson et al. (2025) used quick sensitivity tests and also caught social reinforcers that standard FAs missed. Both papers show that a cheap add-on can flip an “automatic” call into a social one.
Kahng et al. (1999) watched minute-by-minute response shifts when reinforcers turned on or off. The protective probe uses the same idea: block the automatic payoff and watch if social reinforcers suddenly matter.
Why it matters
If your FA graph is flat and you are about to write “automatic,” run one five-minute protective-probe condition. One in four times you will see a social spike and avoid the wrong treatment. It takes almost no extra time and can save weeks of useless sensory-based plans.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After the last automatic condition, run one extra five-minute probe where the child gets attention while the item stays available—graph it and see if behavior spikes.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Prior research has identified the potential dangers associated with challenging behavior, specifically self-injurious behavior, and has thus highlighted the need to employ protective procedures to ensure the safety of individuals with self-injurious behavior. Although protective procedures can sometimes suppress responding, some small-n studies suggest they can also elucidate or unmask social functions when the initial functional analysis indicates that challenging behavior is only automatically maintained. However, large-scale studies of functional analysis outcomes indicate that co-occurring automatically and socially maintained challenging behavior is relatively uncommon. We conducted a retrospective consecutive case series study to describe a set of procedures to unmask social functions when the initial functional analysis indicated an automatic function. Results suggest that protective procedures unmasked social functions in 26.32% of cases.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2026 · doi:10.1002/jaba.70045