By Matt Harrington, BCBA · Behaviorist Book Club · Research-backed answers for behavior analysts
Harm reduction in behavior analysis adapts the public health concept of minimizing negative consequences rather than requiring complete behavior elimination. Instead of targeting a behavior for extinction, a harm reduction approach focuses on reducing the risk and severity of harm associated with the behavior while simultaneously building the individual's skills and coping repertoire. This might involve teaching safer alternatives, modifying the environment to reduce injury risk, or developing coping strategies that the individual can use alongside existing behaviors. The approach acknowledges that complete behavior elimination may not be realistic or desirable for every individual and every behavior.
Extinction can produce several well-documented side effects. Extinction bursts involve temporary increases in the frequency, intensity, duration, or variability of the target behavior before it decreases. Extinction-induced aggression can occur when reinforcement is withheld. Spontaneous recovery, where the extinguished behavior reappears after a period of absence, is common. Emotional responses including frustration, anxiety, and distress are frequently observed. Additionally, extinction can result in the emergence of new challenging behaviors if the individual's need for the reinforcement is not addressed through alternative means. These side effects carry real safety and well-being risks that must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Harm reduction may be more appropriate when the behavior serves an important communicative or regulatory function that cannot be easily replaced, when extinction bursts would pose significant safety risks, when the individual has a limited behavioral repertoire and lacks adequate alternative behaviors, when the individual has experienced trauma related to previous extinction procedures, when consistent implementation of extinction across all settings is not feasible, or when the individual or their representative has expressed preference for an approach that does not involve behavior elimination. These situations are common in practice and warrant careful consideration of alternatives to traditional extinction.
Autistic self-advocates provide information about the lived experience of extinction procedures that cannot be obtained from behavioral data alone. They can describe what it feels like to have communication attempts ignored, to have self-regulatory behaviors suppressed, or to experience an extinction burst from the inside. These experiential reports are data, and they reveal consequences of extinction procedures that may not be captured by frequency counts or duration measures. Including these perspectives leads to more complete clinical decision-making and helps behavior analysts understand the full impact of their procedures on the individuals they serve.
No. Harm reduction shifts the definition of successful outcome rather than lowering expectations. Instead of defining success solely as the elimination of the target behavior, harm reduction defines success as meaningful reduction in harm, improved safety, and enhanced well-being. The individual may still make significant behavioral progress; the progress is simply measured in terms of reduced risk and improved quality of life rather than absolute behavior elimination. In many cases, harm reduction can lead to more sustained improvements because the approach is more acceptable to the individual, more feasible for implementers, and more aligned with the individual's overall needs.
Behavior analysts should provide families with honest, complete information about both approaches. This includes explaining the potential benefits and risks of extinction, describing what extinction bursts look like in practice, and presenting harm reduction as an evidence-informed alternative. Use clear, jargon-free language and provide concrete examples of what each approach would look like for their child. Involve families in the decision-making process by presenting options rather than prescribing a single approach. When families prefer extinction, ensure they understand the full picture. When they prefer harm reduction, support that preference. Code 2.12 requires that consent be truly informed.
Yes. These approaches are not mutually exclusive. A treatment plan might use harm reduction strategies as the primary framework while incorporating limited extinction for specific behaviors where it is clearly the least harmful option. For example, a harm reduction approach to self-injury might include environmental modifications to reduce injury severity, teaching alternative coping strategies, and providing sensory accommodations, while using extinction for a specific, low-risk behavior that has a clear communicative alternative. The key is that each decision is made thoughtfully, with full consideration of the individual's experience and well-being.
The Ethics Code does not prohibit extinction but places it within a framework of ethical decision-making. Code 2.14 requires behavior analysts to recommend reinforcement-based procedures before considering those that involve restriction or removal of reinforcement. Code 2.01 requires that services be in the client's best interest, which necessitates weighing the benefits of extinction against its potential harms. Code 2.12 requires informed consent that includes information about potential risks. Code 2.09 requires involving clients in treatment decisions. Together, these provisions create an ethical framework that requires careful, individualized consideration of whether extinction is appropriate for each case.
Monitoring should include multiple data streams beyond the target behavior. Track the frequency and intensity of extinction bursts to ensure they are within expected and acceptable parameters. Monitor for the emergence of new challenging behaviors that may indicate unmet needs. Assess emotional indicators such as changes in sleep, appetite, engagement, or mood. Collect social validity data from caregivers about how the individual is responding to the procedure. If possible, gather self-report data from the individual about their experience. Establish decision rules in advance that specify under what circumstances the extinction procedure will be modified or discontinued.
The Through Our Eyes panel format provides behavior analysts with perspectives they cannot access through traditional professional development. Hearing directly from autistic advocates about their experiences with behavioral interventions creates empathy and understanding that abstract discussions cannot achieve. The format models the practice of centering the voices of those most affected by professional decisions. It challenges behavior analysts to consider the full impact of their procedures, including subjective and experiential dimensions that behavioral data may not capture. This type of professional development is essential for ethical practice as outlined in Code 1.07 on cultural responsiveness.
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Ready to go deeper? This course covers this topic with structured learning objectives and CEU credit.
Through Our Eyes Panel - Shifting the Paradigm: Extinction and Minimizing Harm — Nyetta Abernathy · 2 BACB Ethics CEUs · $30
Take This Course →2 BACB Ethics CEUs · $30 · BehaviorLive
Research-backed educational guide with practice recommendations
Side-by-side comparison with clinical decision framework
All behavior-analytic intervention is individualized. The information on this page is for educational purposes and does not constitute clinical advice. Treatment decisions should be informed by the best available published research, individualized assessment, and obtained with the informed consent of the client or their legal guardian. Behavior analysts are responsible for practicing within the boundaries of their competence and adhering to the BACB Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts.