4.9: Critical Features of Function-Based Consequence Strategies

Once teaching and prevention strategies have been selected, the next critical step is to determine strategies to reinforce appropriate behavior and minimize or eliminate payoff for problem behavior. Although many people associate the word “consequence” with a punitive response, in behavioral terms consequences can be punitive or pleasant. Within a Positive Behavior Support (PBS; Carr et al., 2002) framework, the goal is to minimize the use of aversive consequences. The function (or purpose) of the student’s behavior should guide the selection of strategies to reinforce appropriate behaviors and minimize payoff for problem behaviors.

Reinforcing Appropriate Behavior. There are four critical features for identifying effective reinforcers. The first two are broad strategies to reinforce the alternative behavior (Petscher, Rey, & Bailey, 2009) and to reinforce desired behavior or approximations toward the desired behavior (Wilder, Harris, Reagan, & Rasey, 2007). More specific considerations when setting up effective interventions to encourage behavior are to identify reinforcers valued by the student (Horner & Day, 1991) and to set reasonable timeframes and expectations for the student to encourage behavior (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). In our experience there are two common mistakes in using reinforcement. The first mistake is selecting incentives that are not valued by the student. The second common mistake is setting goals, expectations, and time frames that are not reasonable for the student to achieve. If we identify a desired reward but only offer it to the student for engaging in perfect behavior, we are oftentimes setting the student up for failure rather than motivating success. What is reasonable for a student depends on the student’s current performance as well as the discrepancy between this skill and the desired behavior. Often, we must begin by reinforcing approximations of the desired behavior in smaller intervals of time before increasing to closer approximations of the desired behavior over longer spans of time.

For Jackson, when he asks for a break (alternative behavior), it is important to reinforce this behavior by providing a break quickly. If Jackson does not learn that asking for a break is a more effective and efficient way to get his needs met than the fidgeting, slamming his hand on the desk, and tearing his papers, he will quickly resort back to the problem behaviors that have worked so effectively in the past. Additionally, he may earn a “free choice pass” if he completes a reasonable, specified number of problems (desired behavior). If Jackson previously has only started one or two problems on a worksheet, it is probably not a reasonable expectation that tomorrow he will earn a reward for completing the entire worksheet. A more reasonable goal might be that he attempts five problems tomorrow to earn the incentive, a more attainable approximation of the desired behavior. By combining the option for Jackson to take a break (alternative behavior), modifying the task to make it easier (antecedent), and adding the incentive of the homework pass (reinforcement), Jackson’s team creates integrated supports that set him up to be successful. The supports incentivize the desired behaviors and reduce Jackson’s need to avoid difficult tasks through inappropriate behaviors.

For Sophia, when she raises her hand to request teacher attention (alternative behavior), it is important to provide teacher attention (reinforcement) immediately. Additionally, Sophia should receive more frequent attention for engaging in appropriate, on-task behavior. She can also earn special time with the teacher if she participates appropriately for the duration of carpet time and is appropriate even when not called on every time she raises her hand (desired behavior). Encouraging Sophia with a highly valued reinforcer like “special teacher time” can be an effective motivator to challenge her to progress through increasing approximations of the desired behavior, as long as the expectations in this progression remain reasonable for Sophia.

Responding to Problem Behavior. Despite our best efforts to set up students and encourage them to engage in appropriate behavior, it is likely the student will revert to problem behavior from time to time. Therefore, a function-based intervention should include specific strategies for responding to problem behavior. These strategies are redirecting to the alternative behavior at the earliest signs of problem behavior (Kern & Clarke, 2005) and actively limiting or eliminating the payoff for problem behavior (extinction; Mace et al., 1988). At the earliest signs that the student is engaging in or is likely to engage in the problem behavior, the first and best option is to briefly remind the student to engage in the alternative behavior and then reinforce the alternative behavior according to the plan. Additionally, it is critical if the student does not respond to the prompt, the team has identified a response to the problem behavior that does not inadvertently reinforce it.

In Jackson’s case, at the earliest sign of problem behavior (e.g. off-task behaviors, fidgeting), his teacher should remind him he could request a break (redirection). When Jackson asks for a break appropriately, the teacher should quickly provide a break and acknowledge him for making a good choice to request a break appropriately. If Jackson does engage in severe problem behaviors to escape the task, he may temporarily be able to avoid the task to maintain safety and order in the classroom. However, responses to remove him from the room should be minimized, and if he must be removed, the work should be sent with him with the expectation that he completes the work when he calms down. Additionally, Jackson could also be required to come in during recess or after school to complete those tasks to minimize or eliminate his long-term opportunities to escape the task.

In Sophia’s case at the earliest signs of off-task behavior (fidgeting, looking around the room), quickly use the visual prompt (limiting the richness of individual verbal attention) to redirect her to quietly raise her hand to request attention. If she does so appropriately, quickly provide teacher attention. If Sophia does not respond, it is important that teacher attention is minimized or eliminated for problem behavior. Instead of chasing Sophia around the room and having a “talk” with her about right and wrong, attention to misbehavior should be limited. In many cases it is not safe for a student to be running around the room, but it is possible to redirect a student in a more impersonal way (no conversation, brief directions, limited eye contact, etc.) that limits attention for problem behavior. In contrast, it is essential that when Sophia is engaging in appropriate behavior she experience rich, high-quality attention so that she clearly learns the difference between the outcomes for desired versus non-desired behavior.