Core ABA Principles Flashcards

A behavior analyst notices that a client's self-injurious behavior (SIB) increases when demands are removed following its occurrence, but also increases when the client is left alone with preferred items. Which experimental condition arrangement would BEST differentiate between automatic negative reinforcement and automatic positive reinforcement as the maintaining function?

Answer: Include both an enriched alone condition (with preferred items present) and a standard alone condition (no items), alongside a demand condition

When SIB may be maintained by automatic reinforcement, distinguishing between automatic positive (sensory stimulation) and automatic negative reinforcement (escape from internal aversive states) requires both an enriched alone condition and a standard alone condition. Elevated SIB in the standard alone condition (no items) but not the enriched condition suggests automatic positive reinforcement; elevated SIB in both suggests automatic negative reinforcement or an undifferentiated automatic function. Simply using demand or attention conditions cannot isolate automatic functions.

During a multiple baseline across behaviors design, a behavior analyst introduces the intervention for Behavior B before Behavior A has reached a stable, acceptable level. Which methodological threat does this MOST directly compromise?

Answer: The ability to replicate the effect across tiers, undermining experimental control

The logic of a multiple baseline design depends on staggered introduction of the independent variable across tiers (behaviors, settings, or participants). Replication of the effect—behavior changes only when and because the intervention is applied—is what establishes experimental control. Introducing the intervention to Behavior B before Behavior A is stable eliminates the replication across tiers and thus undermines experimental control (internal validity via the design's replication logic). It is not simply a history threat, which refers to extraneous events, nor is it primarily an external or social validity concern.

Which of the following BEST describes the concept of 'behavioral momentum' and its practical implication for reducing problem behavior maintained by escape from demands?

Answer: Delivering a sequence of high-probability (easy, well-established) requests before the low-probability (target) request, leveraging the reinforcement history of compliance

Behavioral momentum is analogous to physical momentum: a history of reinforcement for responding in a particular context creates 'response momentum' that persists when a more challenging request follows. The high-p request sequence works by capitalizing on the reinforcement history of complying with easy tasks, so that compliance 'carries over' to the target (low-p) task. Starting with low-probability requests (option A) reverses the procedure and would not create momentum. Options C and D describe magnitude manipulations and stimulus pairing, which are distinct procedures.

A client displays aggression that is maintained by access to tangibles. The team implements differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) using functional communication training (FCT), teaching the client to request items. Problem behavior drops to near-zero. Six months later, the behavior analyst fades FCT prompts. Aggression resurges. Which concept MOST accurately explains this pattern?

Answer: Resurgence of aggression due to the removal of the maintaining reinforcer contingency for the alternative response

Resurgence refers to the reappearance of a previously extinguished (or reduced) behavior when the reinforcement for an alternative behavior is diminished, eliminated, or made more difficult to access—such as during FCT prompt fading, which can disrupt the alternative response and reduce its rate of reinforcement. This is distinct from spontaneous recovery (which occurs after a rest period without any extinction or DRA context), behavioral contrast (rate increases in one context when reinforcement decreases in another), and extinction-induced variability (response variation during extinction itself).

An ABAT is recording frequency data on a client's vocal stereotypy using a hand tally counter during a 30-minute session. The supervisor reviews the data and notes that the counts appear consistently lower on days when the session room is louder. Which measurement artifact BEST accounts for this pattern, and what is the recommended solution?

Answer: Detectability confound; shift to a recording method that does not depend on auditory detection, or standardize the acoustic environment

When frequency recording depends on the observer detecting a behavior (here, hearing vocal stereotypy), ambient noise reduces the detectability of the target response—yielding artificially low counts. This is a detectability confound, not observer drift (which is gradual criterion change over time), reactivity (behavior change due to being observed), or an IOA calculation error. The solution is either to standardize the acoustic environment, use a method less dependent on auditory detection (e.g., partial-interval recording with a visual cue), or use a device that doesn't rely solely on the observer's hearing.

A behavior analyst is evaluating whether a token economy is functioning as intended. Tokens have been delivered contingent on target behaviors, and clients exchange them for backup reinforcers. However, a functional analysis reveals that target behavior rates are not increasing. Which of the following is the MOST likely reason the tokens are failing to function as conditioned generalized reinforcers?

Answer: The backup reinforcers are being delivered non-contingently, preventing the establishment of the token-reinforcer pairing

For tokens to function as conditioned generalized reinforcers, they must be reliably paired with backup reinforcers (i.e., tokens must consistently predict access to backup reinforcers). If backup reinforcers are available non-contingently—independent of token exchange—the pairing is broken, and tokens lose their conditioned reinforcing value. A lean exchange schedule (option B) would slow acquisition but would not prevent conditioning. Token over-delivery (option C) can cause backup reinforcer satiation but is a secondary effect. Option D confuses response difficulty with reinforcer function.