Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, Vol. 3, No.

1, 1991

Generalized Reduction of Difficult Behaviors:

Analysis and Intervention in a Competing
Behaviors Framework
Robert E. O'Neill, 1 Robert H. Horner, 1 M i c h e l l e O'Brien, 2
and Susan H u c k s t e p ~

Although our conceptual framework and technology about establishing

generalized repertoh'es of adaptive behavior have advanced in recent years,
there has been less progress with regard to achieving generalized reduction and
elimination of difficult behaviors. This paper discusses a conceptual approach
to the problem based on the logic of functional analysis and the competing
stimulus control of behaviors, and presents relevant data on a difficult behavior
(grabbing eyeglasses) exhibited by a young adult with retardation and visual
impairment. Assessment and intelvention strategies were implemented based
on a competing stimulus control framework. Results illustrate the types of
problems that applied researchers and practitioners confront in attempting to
achieve desired stimulus control relationships and reduction or elimination of
difficult behaviors.
KEY WORDS: Problem behaviors; generalization; competing behaviors; stimulus control.

INTRODUCTION

Within the field of applied b.ehaTior analysis (and related dis-

ciplines), an effective technology for establishing generalized adaptive
responses and repertoires in persons with severe disabilities has begun to

ISpecialized Training Program, College of Education, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon

97403.
2Oregon Community Support, Eugene, Oregon 97403.

t056-263X/91/0300-0005506.50/09 1991PlenumPublishingCorporation
6 O'Neill et al.

emerge in recent years (Haring, 1988; Haring et al., 1989; Hornet and
Albin, 1988; Horner et al., 1988). At this point, however, the comprehen-
sive integration and application of related concepts and technology for
achieving generalized reduction or elimination of difficult behaviors in
community settings are lacking (Dunlap et al., 1987; Favell and Reid,
1988). In this article a competing behavior framework is used for con-
sidering issues and research relevant to achieving generalized reduction
of such behaviors. Some data from a study guided by application of such
a framework are presented.
It is appropriate to develop approaches for generalized reduction by
building on what has been learned about achieving generalized perfor-
mance of adaptive behaviors. While the concepts and strategies may not
be identical, they will certainly be closely related and intertwined. For ex-
ample, over the years a key component of most programming for difficult
behaviors has been the arrangement of differential reinforcement schedules
for a variety of alternative adaptive behaviors (DRO, DRA, DRI, etc.)
(Donnellan et aI., 1988; La Vigna and Donnellan, 1986). In addition, there
has been increasing emphasis in recent years on teaching specific adaptive
skills (e.g., communicative behaviors) that can produce the same functional
outcomes as difficult behaviors (Bird et al., 1989; Carr, 1988; Carr and
Durand, 1985). Much of the current thinking and research on achieving
generalized control of adaptive responding has involved a broadened
perspective. Along with typical strategies of programming consequences in
various settings to support responding, there has been much greater atten-
tion to analysis and establishment of the full range of stimulus control
relationships needed to obtain performance across relevant community set-
tings (Albin et al., 1987; Horner et al., 1984, 1986). Increasing demands are
being made on training and support technology to produce more significant
widespread lifestyle changes, along with changes in specific targeted be-
haviors (Meyer and Evans, 1989; Homer et al., 1988).
Such demands have important implications for research on the
development of behavior reduction strategies. It is now considered impor-
tant to produce behavior changes beyond limited experimental or clinical
settings. This goal will require significant changes and elaborations in
programming approaches. For example, in recent years there have been
several studies of the effects of a combination of differential reinforcement
and brief interruption or restraint procedures on stereotypic and self-
injurious behavior (Aurand et al., 1989; Azrin et al., 1982, 1988; Under-
wood et al., 1989). Such procedures are frequently reported in the clinical
research literature (Lundervold and Bourland, 1988). These studies have
demonstrated that such procedures can produce behavior reductions for
most persons, but only in the specific settings in which the procedures are
Generalized Reduction 7

being implemented (Aurand et aL, 1989; Azrin et at., 1982). As pointed

out by Lundervold and Bourland (1988), it is not surprising that such
restricted or narrow stimulus control develops, given what has been
learned about establishing more generalized stimulus control of adaptive
behavior.
The outcomes prompt attention to a broader array of strategies, in
combination with such consequence manipulations. For example, it is in-
creasingly considered important to assess how particular simultaneous or
concurrent stimulus control relationships may affect whether or not ap-
propriate or difficult behaviors will be performed in particular situations
(Billingsley and Neei, 1985; Homer and Billingsley, 1988). Such a compet-
ing behavior framework attempts to take into account a variety of poten-
tially influential variables, including (a) presence of stimuli that have
previously established controlling relationships with difficult behaviors, (b)
whether or not the competing behaviors appear to function to achieve
either similar or different outcomes, and (c) the relative efficiency of the
competing behaviors in achieving those outcomes (Homer and Billingsley,
1988).
This type of more complex conceptualization has important implica-
tions for the programming process. Persons involved in structuring be-
havioral support programs will have to attend to a broader, more compre-
hensive array of potential variables that may need to be put into place, or
altered, to facilitate the successful "competition" of adaptive behavior
(Horner, Albin, and O'Neil, 1991; Meyer and Evans, 1989). For example,
a program planner might have to (a) consider ways to reduce or eliminate
presence of stimuli which evoke problem behaviors, (b) select strategies
for teaching and/or supporting adaptive skills that are at least as or more
efficient than difficult behaviors, and (c) attempt to reduce or eliminate
reinforcement for such difficult behaviors. In order to accomplish this, there
will be an increasing need for and reliance on comprehensive functional
analysis assessment procedures. In order to build uniquely appropriate sup-
port programs, it will first be necessary to understand the influential vari-
ables operating in particular situations. Functional analysis procedures
should provide a variety of information to allow program personnel to
define operationally the behavior(s) of concern, identify environmental
predictors of the behavior(s), and develop and test hypotheses regarding
the potential function(s) served by the behavior(s) (i.e., what are the main-
taining consequences?). A variety of procedures for conducting such as-
sessments and obtaining useful information have been described in recent
years (Bailey and Pyles, 1989; Carr and Durand, 1985; Durand and Cart,
1987; Durand and Crimmins, 1988; Iwata et al., 1982; Lennox and Mitten-
8 O'Neill et al.

berger, 1989; O'Neill, et al., 1990; Steege et al., 1989; Sturmey, et al., 1988;
Sugai and Colvin, 1989; Willis et al., 1989).
Research is needed which would (a) demonstrate the existence of the
types of competing behavior relationships described above, (b) demonstrate
the application of functional analysis procedures to such complex situations,
and, (c) use this conceptual framework and assessment information to begin
to develop more comprehensive strategies for bringing about positive
change in such situations. The study described below illustrates (a) the com-
plexity of the functional analysis assessment that may be required to con-
firm or rule out various hypotheses about particular stimulus control
relationships, and (b) how typical programming strategies may be ineffec-
tive when they do not attempt to take into account such relationships.

METHOD

Participant

Mike (a pseudonym), a 21-year-old man with severe mental retar-

dation and moderate visual impairment, was the participant in this study.
He exhibited some functional stereotypic communicative verbal phrases,
and engaged in a variety of stereotypic visual/motor behaviors (hand and
object flapping, gazing, etc.). He was able to complete most self-care
routines with minimal to moderate assistance. During the study Mike at-
tended a local high school classroom for students with severe disabilities,
and had a part-time placement in a local vocational program specializing
in electronics subcontracting work. Mike experienced grand mal seizures
every 1-2 months, and was receiving medication (Dilantin: 200 rag/day;
Depakote: 1250 mg/day) to control such seizures during the course of the
study.
Mike's major problem behaviors include grabbing eyeglasses from
people's faces, and occasionally attempting to step on people's feet. The
glasses grabbing behavior was particularly problematic in community set-
tings, as he had to be carefully supervised at all times when persons wearing
glasses were present. Several grabbing incidents had occurred in the com-
munity (e.g., an elderly woman on a bus, a child in a pizza parlor). Staff
persons were reluctant to go into the community with Mike, as he required
intensive supervision at all times to prevent grabbing incidents. This be-
havior had been occurring for approximately 16-17 years (since Mike was
3-4 years old). A series of formal and informal behavior programs had
been implemented over the years to eliminate Mike's glasses grabbing, in-
cluding highly intrusive procedures such as extensive physically forced over-
Generalized Reduction 9

correction. None of these procedures had been successful in achieving

generalized long-term elimination of the behavior.

Settings

Initial observations and functional analysis sessions were conducted

in several areas of Mike's classroom setting (e.g., at his desk, at a table).
Training sessions took place in an area in the classroom (a work table in
the back of the room) and areas in the school adjacent to the classroom
(e.g., hallways). Baseline and post-training probe sessions (see Procedures)
were conducted in several areas in four settings: (a) classroom areas not
involved in training sessions, (b) areas in the school cafeteria and adjacent
hallways, (c) areas at Mike's vocational program (e.g., work station, lunch
area), and (d) community settings close to Mike's vocational program (e.g.,
nearby sidewalks, supermarket, etc.).

Measurement

The primary dependent variable was the number of times Mike

grabbed eyeglasses (or attempted to grab) during a session. A grab was
recorded when Mike was successful at removing glasses from a person's
face; attempted grabs were recorded when Mike reached toward a person's
face to grab but was prevented from actually removing the glasses. Initial
functional analysis sessions lasted approximately 5 min. During these ses-
sions Mike was allowed to grab glasses as often as he wished. The only
factor limiting the number of grabs was the time that it took between grabs
for the person working with Mike to put the glasses back on his/her face.
During each baseline and post-training probe session, Mike was presented
with five opportunities to grab glasses in each of the four settings listed
above, so the maximum possible number of grabs per probe session was
five.

Interobserver Agreernent

Either the person working with Mike during a session or another ob-
server served as the primary data collector for each functional analysis or
probe session. A second observer collected data during 64% of the func-
tional analysis sessions and 90% of the baseline and post-training probe
sessions. Observers employed either wrist counters or prepared data sheets
to record each occurrence of grabbing or attempted grabbing during the
10 O'Neill et al.

sessions. For the functional analysis sessions, agreement was calculated by

dividing the smaller number of grabs or attempts recorded by the larger
number recorded for each session. Since a specific number of opportunities
was presented during baseline and post-training probe sessions, agreement
was calculated by dividing the number of agreements by agreements plus
disagreements. For the functional analysis sessions, agreement averaged
92% (range 66-100%). For baseline and post-training probe sessions agree-
ment averaged 98% (range 80-100%).

Design

This report presents two separate analyses. The first is a series of

withdrawal designs that provide a functional analysis assessment. The as-
sessment led to two hypotheses about the potential generalized effects of
different interventions. The second analysis involved an alternating treat-
ment design to evaluate the first of these hypotheses. Unfortunately, Mike
left for summer vacation before the second hypothesis could be tested.

Procedures

Initial Functional Analysis Assessment

Due to the long-standing history of Mike's grabbing behavior, many

people had many hypotheses about why it occurred, but little direct assess-
ment had been carried out. To determine the function of the grabbing be-
havior, initial functional analysis assessments were conducted. These
sessions took place in Mike's classroom, and involved a person working
with Mike on one or more of his typical classroom activities (e.g., small
parts assembly, dressing skills, reading, etc.).
1. Analysis of Stimulus Features. The first set of manipulations in-
volved different types of glasses and the position of glasses on a person.
These were conducted to assess the potential influence of different
stimulus features and Mike's visual impairment on grabbing. A variety of
glasses frames were worn by three different trainers during the analysis.
Three types of sessions were conducted: On String, On Face, and On
Head. During the first phase the person working with Mike placed the
glasses on a string holder so they hung down below the chin. During the
second and fourth phases glasses were worn over the trainer's eyes in a
normal position. In the third and fifth phases glasses were worn pushed
up on top of the trainer's head.
Generalized Reduction 11

During these and other subsequent functional analysis sessions, the

trainers would provide appropriate directions, prompts and assistance,
and feedback for correct and incorrect task performance. During all func-
tional analysis sessions (except response blocking: see below) Mike was
allowed to grab glasses as often as he wished. When this occurred the
trainer would ask him to hand them back, put them back on, and con-
tinue the session.
Z Analysis of task difficulty. The second set of manipulations com-
pared the rate of grabbing during easy and mote difficult tasks. During the
first and third phases Mike was asked to complete tasks with which he was
very familiar and required little or no assistance. During the second and
fourth phases Mike was asked to complete tasks that were very difficult or
that he could not complete without substantial prompting and assistance.
These sessions were conducted to determine if Mike's grabbing was poten-
tially escape- or avoidance-motivated.
3. Analysis of social influence. The third set of manipulations at-
tempted to determine if the grabbing was motivated by the types of social
responses it received (i.e., attention, a "startle" response). The glasses were
placed on a styrofoam "head", which had been decorated so that it had
"rudimentary" human features (e.g. hair, eyes, nose, mouth). The head was
placed on the table where Mike was working, either alone (second phase)
or with another person present (first and third phases).
4. Analysis of response blocking. The final set of manipulations were
conducted to assess the effects of a blocking intervention on the rate of
Mike's grabbing. We had been told that blocking Mike's attempts to grab
would be effective, but only for the person blocking in that specific setting.
During No Block sessions (first and third phases) Mike was allowed to
grab as often as he wished. During Blocking sessions (second and fourth
phases), whenever Mike attempted to grab glasses the person working with
him would reach up and push his hand aside with a sweeping motion and
repeat the instructional prompt.

Generalization Analyses

The second analysis involved three phases: Baseline, Training, and

Post-training.
1. Baseline. Baseline sessions were conducted in four major settings
(classroom areas, school cafeteria and hallways, vocational program, and
nearby community settings). A session in one setting consisted of presenting
Mike with five opportunities to grab from persons wearing glasses during
12 O'Neill et al.

a series of interactions. A session lasted 15-20 min and the interactions

were structured to be as appropriate and natural as possible for the settings.
In the classroom and work program settings, persons would approach Mike
to greet and interact with him, ask him to bring materials to another part
of the room, complete a task, etc. In the school cafeteria and community
settings, the probe persons would approach and initiate interactions with
Mike and the staff person(s) accompanying him. Due to Mike's visual im-
pairment, it was not always possible to tell if he was aware that persons
close to him were wearing glasses. To try and ensure that Mike was aware
of the opportunities, each interaction during a probe session began by
having the probe person ask Mike to took at him/her and say hello. Fol-
lowing this, the interaction would continue for approximately 2-3 min.
During these opportunities Mike was allowed to grab glasses. If he did so,
the probe person would ask for them back, complete the interaction, and
leave. If Mike did not grab, the probe person would complete the inter-
action and leave.
Probes were conducted with two classes of people: trainers (a male
and a female who were going to serve as trainers in the next phase), and
people who were not going to be involved in subsequent training sessions.
The nontraining probe persons included a variety of males and females
from the different settings, including staff persons, student peers, and con-
federates who were previously familiar or unfamiliar to Mike. Three sets
of probe sessions were conducted for both trainers and nontrainers in each
setting during the baseline condition.

Training

Following baseline probes, an initial intervention was implemented in

Mike's classroom setting (and nearby nonprobe school locations), which
consisted of having one of two persons (a male and a female) designated
as trainers interact with Mike and periodically wear glasses. During these
sessions the person blocked Mike's grabbing attempts and periodically rein-
forced him for not grabbing in the presence of glasses. This was done to
assess the potential generalized effects of a program which was typical of
those that had previously been attempted with Mike. As mentioned, the
blocking intervention was typically successful, but its effects were very nar-
row and specific with regard to persons and settings.
Two or three sessions were conducted each day, 3-5 days per week,
with sessions averaging approximately 20 rain in length. During each ses-
sion, the person interacting with Mike would present approximately 10 op-
Generalized Reduction 13

portunities for him to be aware of and grab glasses. If Mike made a grab
attempt, he would be blocked, the interaction would continue, and another
opportunity would be presented. If he did not attempt a grab, he would
receive enthusiastic social praise, a tangible reinforcer of his choice (typi-
cally pretzels), and would be told why he was being given the reinforcer.
Initially the persons interacting with Mike would remove the glasses shortly
after each opportunity. As training progressed the trainers began leaving
the glasses on for increasingly longer periods after each opportunity, until
by the end of this training phase they were wearing glasses nearly the entire
duration of each session.
The original plan of the study called for continuing such training until
Mike reached a criterion of exhibiting no grabs or attempts for 3 consecu-
tive days, at which point another round of probes in all four settings would
be carried out. While training data demonstrated a steady decline to low
rates of grabs/attempts, before the criterion could be reached we learned
that Mike would shortly be moving out of the area. Due to his impending
move the decision was made to terminate training and implement the post-
training probes described below.
It was anticipated that this initial strategy would result in limited
generalized suppression, since it would not result in changing the overall
stimulus control of glasses over Mike' behavior, but would only establish
more narrow control by specific persons wearing glasses. However, as men-
tioned above, one of the goals of the study was to document that a typical
type of intervention program would not produce the desired outcomes.
After the first set of post-training probes demonstrated this pattern, an
intervention was planned which focused on continuing to block grab at-
tempts (to get some initial suppression), and attempting to make the
presence of glasses discriminative for a new response of self-delivering a
preferred reinforcer. However, due to Mike's leaving the area, it was not
possible to assess the effects of this second training strategy on his grabbing
behavior.
3. Post-training probe sessions. As in baseline sessions, both trainers
and persons not involved in training participated in post-training probes.
Two sets of probe sessions with both types of persons were conducted in
each setting after the termination of the initial training phase. The only
difference between the baseline and post-training probes was that the two
persons who were involved in the training activities blocked any grabbing
attempts during the post-training probes. This was done in order to deter-
mine if the stimulus control that the trainers had developed would be in-
fluenced by Mike's exposure to the other nontraining persons and different
contingencies during the post-training probes.
14 O'Neill et al.

Panel A Panel B

OnI On/ On/On/ On

0;11
40 Eas Diff. Eas ' Diff.
4031
]20_1
-StrinlFacl
"~Heal'%F~a'~lHead,9,..~.

Number
of
Grabs/ Panel C Panel D
Attempts Durum,, MDuntmy Person
-Hers~
"~lAIone.
DurumIon Face No No I

I
401 9 /'t & =Y lO0 40 Bloc klBIoc~BIocP~Block
30 t /l[Persl n
60 --=rK

!t:l /
40
200 0t l "-"l / "-~
Five Minute Sessions
Fig. 1. Results of the functional analysis manipulations. Number of grabs/attempts is presented
on the ordinate, with sessions presented on the abscissa. Note that the data points in the
second phase of Panel C (Dummy Alone) should be considered in reference to the ordinate
on the right side of the panel (Percentage of Trials w/Grabs).

The specific results for the initial functional analysis sessions and the
baseline and post-training probes are presented below.

RESULTS

Functional Analysis Sessions

Results f r o m the functional analysis assessment are p r e s e n t e d in the

panels in Fig. 1. Panel A presents the data for the manipulations involv-
ing stimulus features. Mike consistently g r a b b e d a variety of types of
glasses, but only when they were positioned over a person's eyes in a
typical f a s h i o n ( O n Face). D u r i n g t h o s e two p h a s e s he g r a b b e d an
average of 14.67 times per session. H e did not grab glasses when they
were hanging below on a holder or pushed up on s o m e o n e ' s f o r e h e a d
area (On String, On Head). As mentioned above, throughout the sessions
Generalized Reduction 15

when he grabbed glasses he would give them back upon request without
breaking or throwing them.
Panel B presents results from the analysis of task difficulty. The type
of task did not appear to influence the rate at which Mike grabbed glasses.
The average frequency per session across the Easy phases was 15, while
the average frequency per session across the Difficult sessions was 13.2.
The average frequencies per session for the four successive phases were
13.67, 13, 16.33, and 13.33, respectively. Based on these results it did not
appear that the behavior was strongly motivated by escape or avoidance
from more difficult situations.
Panel C contains results from the assessment focused on the role
of social attention as a maintaining consequence. During the first phase,
in which Mike was allowed to grab glasses from a "dummy" head with
another person present, he grabbed at an average frequency of 12.33
times per session. The asterisk data points for the second phase should
be considered with reference to the ordinate on the right side of the
panel (Percentage of trials w/grabs). During these two sessions, Mike was
given trials or opportunities to grab from the dummy head with no person
nearby. During the first session he grabbed the glasses on 50% of these
opportunities, and he grabbed on 100% of these opportunities during the
second session. Switching back to the dummy/person present condition,
he grabbed at an average frequency of 13.33 times per session. The final
phase replicated the initial conditions of a person wearing glasses, during
which Mike grabbed at an average frequency of 8 times per session.
These data suggested that the types of social reactions and feedback Mike
received for grabbing were not strongly involved, although it is difficult
to completely remove all social aspects or components from such inter-
actions.
Panel D presents data from the sessions in which we compared No
Block and Blocking conditions. During the initial No Block phase, Mike
grabbed at an average frequency of 14.67 times per session. During the
first Blocking condition, he only grabbed 1 time per session. The last two
phases basically replicated these effects. These data indicated that the
blocking was effective, but that Mike was quickly able to discriminate when
and with whom it was and was not in effect. That is, during the blocking
sessions he would typically make one grabbing attempt, be blocked, and
then stop grabbing for the remainder of the session, but would then try
again during the next session. These data illustrated the typical lack of
generalized suppression that had been seen when similar programs had
been previously implemented with Mike.
16 O'Neill et aL

While these analysis results did not necessarily help to specify the
function(s) that grabbing appeared to serve, it did allow some hypotheses
to be ruled out or given less credence (e.g., social attention/response, es-
cape/avoidance). Since the grabbing appeared to be analogous to self-
delivering some type of reinforcing event, we planned to ultimately try and
change the stimulus control of glasses by making them discriminative for
an alternative response (e.g., self-delivery of an alternative reinforcer), as
described above.

Baseline and Post-Training Probes

Results from these probe sessions are presented in Fig. 2. The num-
ber of grabs per probe session is plotted on the ordinate (maximum of 5
per session), and sessions are plotted on the abscissa. Each panel of the
graph presents data from a different probe setting. The asterisk data
points (*) are from sessions with the persons involved in training, and the
solid data points are from sessions with persons n o t involved in the train-
ing sessions.
During baseline probe sessions, Mike grabbed glasses in each setting
on every opportunity except one (when he was with one of the nontraining
persons). Following these baseiine probes, the first phase of training was
implemented in the classroom and nearby nonprobe areas (see description
above). While this training resulted in a low rate of grabs during training
sessions, due to Mike's imminent departure (as described above), training
had to be terminated and two sets of post-training probes were conducted.
As mentioned above, during these probes the persons involved in the train-
ing sessions continued to block Mike's grabbing attempts when they
occurred.
As can be seen in Fig. 2, Mike displayed an inconsistent pattern across
persons and settings. With the nontrained persons, he initially did not grab
in the classroom and school probe settings, but then began to grab in the
other settings, and then did so on every opportunity with the nontraining
persons after that. This appeared to have some influence on the probe
sessions conducted with trained persons, in that Mike had higher rates of
grab attempts in the probes than during training sessions, but then stopped
or decreased attempts once the blocking contingencies were again ap-
parent. Again, these data demonstrate that he was able to discriminate
when such contingencies were in effect and when they were not (i.e., grab-
bing with some persons and not others).
Generalized Reduction 17

Training Trainers
in Post Other
Baseline School Training People

School

5- *-=, z x : ~i 7
4-
Class 3-
Number 2-
of 1-
Grabs/ 0.
Attempts
4-
Community 3-

1-
0

4-
Work 3-
2-
1-

Probe Sessions

Fig. 2. Results from the baseline and post-training probes in four different set-
tings. Number of grabs/attempts is presented on the ordinate, with sessions
presented on the abscissa. Asterisk data points represent probe sessions with
persons involved in training sessions; solid data points represent probe sessions
with persons n o t involved in training sessions.

DISCUSSION

The data from the study described above indicate that (a) the func-
tional analysis assessment session provided information that helped to rule
out some classes of potentially influential variables, (b) the functional
analysis information and the competing behavior framework provided a
logical and empirical direction for planning an intervention strategy, and
18 O'Neill et al.

(c) the application of a relatively typical initial intervention strategy focus-

ing on behavioral consequences was not successful in achieving the desired
generalized reduction outcomes.
While the initial analyses did not specifically identify the function(s)
of the grabbing behavior, it did appear possible to rule out some of the
more common functions of problem behavior which have been identified
in other studies, such as social attention-seeking and escape/avoidance.
These data did make it clear that glasses had strong and pervasive control
of the grabbing behavior, and that a consequence-based intervention
resulted in situation-specific reductions. (It is worth noting here that pre-
vious attempts had been made to achieve generalized suppression by
implementing blocking in a variety of settings with a variety of persons,
but these attempts were not successful.) Such approaches have the effect
of creating "compound" stimulus control. That is, presence of glasses on
particular persons becomes discriminative for a very low probability of
reinforcement, in that grabbing is very likely to be blocked or prevented,
while glasses on other persons is discriminative for a much higher prob-
ability of reinforcement (i.e., low chance of blocks) (Aurand et al., 1989).
Given this, the best approach appeared to be to try and change the
problematic stimulus control which glasses appeared to exert over Mike's
behavior, so that they would set the occasion for a different response. It
was hoped that this would allow for eventually shifting to a self-manage-
ment strategy in which Mike could self-deliver tokens, or otherwise keep
track of the number of times he encountered glasses, and receive preferred
reinforcers at a later point in time. This intervention could have been im-
plemented across people and settings with glasses present to develop new
stimulus control relationships (Horner and Billingsley, 1988). The inter-
vention strategy would have been comprehensive in attempting to deal
with changing the stimulus control of antecedent stimuli, establishing a
new, equally efficient alternative response, and providing appropriate con-
sequences for both the desired and difficult behaviors (Horner et al., 1991;
Meyer and Evans, 1989).
Continued applied research involving functional analysis strategies
and the competing behaviors framework will allow a fuller assessment of
the theoretical and clinical validity and utility of this approach. Greater
awareness of potential competing stimulus control relationships should
prompt researchers and service providers to be more careful and detailed
in their analyses of what is occurring in unclear and difficult situations. As
mentioned above, given that it is possible to understand the potentially
competing variables in a given situation, there are a wider variety of
avenues of attack with regard to programming strategies (i.e., chang-
Generalized Reduction 19

ing/eliminating stimuli, manipulating response efficiency, and manipulating

consequences). Such conceptual guidelines and procedural strategies will
facilitate the development of positively oriented, comprehensive support
programs for persons with developmental disabilities exhibiting difficuit
behaviors.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors extend their sincere appreciation to Joan Witty, her

classroom staff, and the students at North Eugene High School; John
Dully and the staff at Eugene Precision Manufacturing Services; the Lane
County Education Service District T M R Program; and to Mike and his
parents for their interest and participation in the study described in this
paper. We would also like to thank Dr. Richard Albin, Tiina Itkonen,
Lora Tuesday-Heathfield, Craig Kennedy, and Brigid Flannery for their
assistance in the conduct of this study. Special appreciation is extended
to the R a i n b o w Optics c o m p a n y of E u g e n e , O r e g o n , for providing
eyeglasses. Preparation of this paper and the research reported herein
were supported by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
R e s e a r c h ( R e s e a r c h and T r a i n i n g C e n t e r , C o o p e r a t i v e A g r e e m e n t
GOO87CO234). The position expressed herein do not necessarily reflect
the opinions or policies of the supporting agency, and no official endor-
sement should be inferred. Michelle O'Brien is now with E n t e r Personnel
in Sydney, Australia.

REFERENCES

Albin, R. W., McDonnell,J. J., and Wilcox,B. (1987). Designing interventions to meet activity
goals. In B. Wilcox and G. T. Bellamy (Eds.), A Comprehensive Guide to the Activities
Catalog (pp. 63-88). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Aurand, J. C., Sisson, L. A., Aach, S. R., and Van Hasselt, V. B. (1989). Use of reinforcement
plus interruption to reduce self-stimulation in a child with multiple handicaps. Journal of
the Multihandicapped Person, 2, 51-61.
Azrin, N. H., Besalel, V. A., Jamner, J. P., and Caputo, .1. N. (1988). Comparative study of
behavioral methods of treating severe self-injury. Behavioral Residential Treatment, 3,
119-152.
Azrin, N. H., Besalel, V. A., and Wisotzek, I. E. (1982). Treatment of self-injury by a
reinforcement plus interruption procedure. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental
Disabilities, 2, 105-113.
Bailey, J. S., and Pyles, D.A.M. (1989). Behavioral diagnostics, In E. Cipani (Ed.), The
Treatment of Severe Behavior Disorders: Behavior Analysis Approaches (pp. 85-107).
Washington, D.C.: American Association on Mental Retardation.
20 O'Neill et al.

Billingsley, F. F., and Neel, R. S. (1985). Competing behaviors and their effects on skill
generalization and maintenance. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities,
5, 357-372.
Bird, F., Dores, P. A., Moniz, D., and Robinson, J. (1989). Reducing severe aggressive and
self-injurious behaviors with functional communication training. American Journal on
Mental Retardation, 94, 37-48.
Carr, E. G. (1988). Functional equivalence as a mechanism of response generalization. In R.
H. Homer, G. Dunlap, and R. L. Koegel (Eds.), Generalization and Maintenance:
Life-Style Changes in Applied Settings (p. 221-241). Baltimore, Paul H. Brookes.
Carr, E. G., and Durand, V. M. (1985). Reducing behavior problems through functional
communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 111-126.
Donnellan, A. M., LaVigna, G. W., Negri-Shoultz, N., and Fassbender, L. L. (1988). Progress
without Punishment. New York: Teacher's College Press.
Dunalp, G., Johnson, J., Winterling, V., and Morelli, M. A. (1987). The management of
disruptive behavior in unsupervised settings: Issues and directions for a behavioral
technology. Education and Treatment of Children, 10, 367-382.
Durand, V. M., and Carr, E. G. (1987). Social influences on "self-stimulatory" behavior:
Analysis and treatment application. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 119-132.
Durand, V. M., and Crimmins, D. B. (1988). The Motivation Assessment Scale: An
Administration Manual, Unpublished manuscript, State University of New York at Albany.
Favell, J. E., and Reid, D. H. (1988). Generalizing and maintaining improvements in problem
behavior. In R. H. Homer, G. Dunlap, and R. L. Koegel (Eds.), Generalization and
Maintenance: Lifestyle Changes in Applied Settings (pp. 171-196). Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes.
Haring, N. G. (ed.) (1988). Generalization for Students with Severe Handicaps: Strategies and
Solutions. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Hating, T. G., Breen, C. G., and Laitinen, R. E. (1989). Stimulus class formation and concept
learning: Establishment of within- and between-set generalization and transitive
relationships via conditional discrimination procedures. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behaviot; 52, 13-25.
Horner, R. H., and Albin, R. W. (1988). Research on general-case procedures with learners
with severe disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 11, 375-388.
Homer, R. H., Albin, R. W., and Mank, D. M. (1989). Effects of undesirable, competing
behaviors on the generalization of adaptive skills: A case study. Behavior Modification,
13, 74-90.
Homer, R. H., Albin, R. W., and O'Neill, R. E. (1991). Supporting students with severe
intellectual disabilities and severe challenging behaviors. In G. Stoner, M. R. Shinn, and
H. M. Walker (Eds.), Intepventions for achievement and behavior problems (pp. 269-287),
Washington, D. C.: National Association of School Psychologists.
Hornera, R. H., Bellamy, G. T., and Colvin, G. T. (1984). Responding in the presence of
nontrained stimuli: Implications of generalization error patterns. Journal of the Association
for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 9, 287-296.
Hornet, R. H., and Billingsley, F. F. (1988). The effect of competing behavior on the
generalization and maintenance of adaptive behavior in applied settings. In R. H.,
Horner, G. Dunlap, and R. L. Koegel (Eds.), Generalization and Maintenance: Life-Style
Changes in Applied Settings; (pp. 197-220). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Homer, R. H., Dunlap, G., and Koegel, R. L. (Eds.) (1988). Generalization and Maintenance:
Life-Style Changes in Applied Settings, Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Horner, R. H., McDonnell, J. J., and Bellamy, G. T. (1986). Teaching generalized behaviors:
General-case instruction in simulation and community settings. In R. H. Homer, L. H.
Meyer, and H. D. Fredericks (Eds.), Education of Learners with Severe Handicaps:
Exemplaly Service Strategies (pp. 289-315). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Baumann, K. E., and Richman, G. S. (1982). Toward
a functional analysis of self-injury. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities,
2, 3-20.
Generalized Reduction 21

LaVigna, G. W., and Donnellan, A. M. (1986). Alternatives to Punishment. New York:

Irvington.
Lennox, D. B., and Miltenberger, R. G. (1989). Conducting a functional assessment of problem
behavior in applied settings. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps,
14, 304-311.
Lundervold, D., and Bourland, G. (1988). Quantitative analysis of treatment of aggression,
self-injury, and property destruction. Behavior Modification, 12, 590-617.
Mace, F. C, Page, T. J., Ivancic, M. T., and O'Brien, S. (1986). Environmental determinants
of aggression and disruption in mentally retarded children. Applied Research in Mental
Retardation, 7, 203-221.
Meyer, L. H., and Evans, I. M. (1989). Nonaversive Intelvention for Behavior Problems.
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
O'Neill, R. E., Homer, R. H., Albin, R. W., Storey, K., and Sprague, J. R. (1990). Functional
analysis of problem behaviol:" a practical assessment guide. Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Press.
Steege, M. W., Wacker, D. P., Berg, W. K., Cigrand, K. K., and Cooper, L. J. (1989). The
use of behavioral assessment to prescribe and evaluate treatments for severely
handicapped children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 23-33.
Sturmey, P., Carlsen, A., Crisp, A. G., and Newton, J. T. (1988). A functional analysis of
multiple aberrant responses: A refinement and extension of Iwata et al.'s (1982)
methodology. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 32, 31-46.
Sugai, G., and Colvin, G. (1989). Environmental Explanations of Behavior: Conducting a
I~nctional Analysis. Eugene, OR: Behavior Associates.
Underwood, L. A., Figueroa, R. G., Thyer, B. A., and Nzeocha, A. (1989). Interruption and
DRI in the treatment of self-injurious behavior among mentally retarded and autistic
self-restrainers. Behavior Modification, 13, 471-481.
Willis, T. J., LaVigna, G, W., and Donneltan, A. M. (1989). Behavior Assessmem GuMe. Los
Angeles, CA: Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis.