The behavior of staff who care for people with mental retardation has been identified as a significant factor in the development and maintenance of challenging behaviors. In a recent analysis, Hastings and Remington (1994a) suggested that both environmental contingencies and rules from other people may affect staff actions. The present study tested this analysis by asking participants to respond to a computer simulation of a work situation involving the care of two individuals who engaged in self-injurious behavior. Fifty participants "interacted" with an attention-seeker and a social-avoider on a simulated teaching task. Results showed that rules were the main factor governing performance. The aversive nature of the contingencies between the self-injury and participants' "attending" behavior also appeared to be influential. The implications of these results for work with care staff, the analysis of challenging behaviors, and experimental research on rule-govemed behavior are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baron, A. , & Galizio, M. (1983). Instructional control of human operant behavior. The Psychological Record, 33, 495-520.
2.
Baron, A. , Perone, M., & Galizio, M. (1991). Analyzing the reinforcement process at the human level: Can application and behavioristic interpretation replace laboratory research?The Behavior Analyst, 14, 95-105.
3.
Carr, E. G. , Taylor, J. C., & Robinson, S. (1991). The effects of severe behavior problems in children on the teaching behavior of adults. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 523-535.
4.
Catania, A. C. , Shimoff, E., & Matthews, B. A. (1989). An experimental analysis of rule governed behavior. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.), Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies and instructional control (pp. 119-150). New York: Plenum.
5.
Epstein, R. (1986). Simulation research in the analysis of behavior. In A. Poling & R. W. Fuqua (Eds.), Researchmethods in applied behavioral analysis: Issues and advances (pp. 127-155). New York: Plenum.
6.
Hall, S. , & Oliver, C. (1992). Differential effects of severe self-injurious behaviour on the behaviour of others. Behavioural Psychotherapy, 20, 355-366.
7.
Hastings, R. P. , & Remington, B. (1994a). Rules of engagement: Towards an analysis of staff responses to challenging behavior. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 15, 279-298.
8.
Hastings, R. P. , & Remington, B. (1994b). Staff behaviour and its implications for people with learning disabilities and challenging behaviours. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33, 423-438.
9.
Hastings, R. P. , Remington, B., & Hopper, G. M. (in press). Experienced and inexperienced health care workers' beliefs about challenging behaviours. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research.
10.
Hayes, S. C. , Brownstein, A. J., Haas, J. R., & Greenway, D. E. (1986). Instructions, multiple schedules, and extinction: Distinguishing rule-governed from schedule-controlled behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 137-147.
11.
Hayes, S. C. , Hayes, L. J., & Reese, H. W. (1988). Finding the philosophical core: A review of Stephen C. Pepper's world hypotheses: A study in evidence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 97-111.
12.
Malagoldi, E. F. (1986). On radicalizing behaviorism: A call for cultural analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 9, 1-17.
13.
Rapport, M. , Stoner, G., DuPaul, G., Kelly, K., Tucker, S., & Schoeler, T. (1988). Attention deficit disorder and methylphenidate: A multilevel analysis of dose-response effects on children's impulsivity across settings. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27, 60-69.
14.
Reid, D. H. , Parsons, M. B., & Green, C. W. (1989). Treating aberrantbehavior through effective staff management: A developing technology. In E. Cipani (Ed.), The treatment of severe behavior disorders: Behavior analysis approaches (pp. 175-190). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
15.
Rosenfarb, I. S. , Newland, M. C., Brannon, S. E., & Howey, D. S. (1992). Effects of self-generated rules on the development of schedule-controlled behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58, 107-121.
16.
Shimoff, E. , Matthews, B. A., & Catania, A. C. (1986). Human operant performance: Sensitivity and pseudosensitivity to contingencies. Journal of the Erperimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 149-157.
17.
Taylor, J. C. , & Carr, E. G. (1992a). Severe problem behaviors related to social interaction 1: Attention seeking and social avoidance. Behavior Modification, 16, 305-335.
18.
Taylor, J. C. , & Caff, E. G. (1992b). Severe problem behaviors related to social interaction 2: A systems analysis. Behavior Modification, 16, 336-371.
19.
Webley, P. , Robben, H., Elffers, H., & Hessing, D. (1991). Tax evasion: An experimental approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20.
Zettle, R. D. (1990). Rule-governed behavior: A radical behavioral answer to the cognitive challenge. The Psychological Record, 40, 41-49.
21.
Zettle, R. D. , & Hayes, S. C. (1982). Rule-governed behavior: A potential framework for cognitive-behavioral therapy. In P. C. Kendall (Ed.), Advances in cognitive-behavioral research and therapy (Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press.
