The communicative function hypothesis: An operant behavior perspective

1. Behov. Thu. c? Exp Psvrhrar. Vol. 21. No. 4. pp. 23%247, 1990 Printed m Great Britain.

cmF7916/ws3.00 + I).MI Perpamon Press plc

THE COMMUNICATIVE FUNCTION HYPOTHESIS: AN OPERANT BEHAVIOR PERSPECTIVE ENNIO University

CIPANI of the Pacific

Summary - The suggestion that all problem behaviors may serve a communicative function is explored from an operant perspective. An analysis of the environmental functions of operant behavior involves an understanding of two sets of relations: (1) two types of reinforcement contingencies (positive and negative) and (2) two types of operant behaviors (verbal and non-verbal). Such an operant analysis reveals that not all problem behaviors may currently serve a communicative function. However, often an alternate replacemenf behavior can be developed that would achieve the same environmental effect as the problem behavior through social mediation and thereby be communicative in nature. A theoretical classification system for identifying the type of function a problem behavior may serve is advanced. Implications for prescribing behavioral treatments based on this model are presented.

The treatment of problem behaviors exhibited by persons with developmental disabilities has evolved in recent years. Recently, professionals in the field have advocated a systematic analysis of the conditions under which the problem behavior is exhibited as a requisite for designing treatment programs (Bailey & Pyles, 1989; Durand, 1986; LaVigna & Donnellan. 1986; LaVigna, Willis, & Donnellan, 1989; Repp, Felce, & Barton, 1988). A functional analysis of behavior identifies the nature of the problem behavior. By conducting a functional analysis, one can design an intervention program that identifies alternative behaviors that. once shaped and maintained, could serve the same function as the target problem behavior in the designated target environment(s). Some people have suggested that all problem behaviors can be analyzed as serving communicative functions (Donnellan. Mirenda, Mesaros, & Fassbender, 1984; Schuler & Goetz, 1981; Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson. 1967), particularly if one conducts a functional analysis (Donnellan, Mirenda, Mesaros, & Fassbender, 1984). Under this premise, all Requests for reprints should be addressed Pacific. Stocton. CA 95211, U.S.A.

to Dr. Ennio

behaviors are interpreted to communicate desired outcomes to a target audience. Therefore, one should attempt to identify what the client or student is communicating through his/ her behavior. Such an analysis of communicative intent should take into account the context of the behavior (Donnellan et al., 1984). Upon superficial inspection of the topography of some problem behaviors (e.g., selfabuse), one may be hard pressed to see the similarity between self-abuse and vocal speech or communication. The relevant question then “How are aberrant, unacceptable becomes, nonvocal target behaviors similar in function to appropriate vocal communicative behaviors?” A study by Weeks and Gaylord-Ross (1981) demonstrated how aberrant behaviors can be viewed as communicative in function by analyzing the antecedent and consequent conditions of their occurrence. In their study, the introduction of difficult task demands increased the frequency of aberrant behaviors by a student. Conversely. replacement of these difficult task demands. with easy demands, resulted in low rates of targeted behaviors, thereby demonsCipant.

Department

of Special

Education,

University

of the

240

ENNIO

trating a functional relationship between the level of task demands and the level of aberrant behavior. Such a functional relationship exemplifies the role of negative reinforcement as the operation that maintains the aberrant behavior through escape (albeit temporary) from difficult task demands. The inference regarding the communicative intent of the aberrant behavior is that the individual is communicating the undesirability of the difficult tasks (Donnellan et al., 1984). A parallel to vocal speech can be drawn, given this information. For example, under those circumstances, a vocal behavior one might engage in with a similar function (i.e., removal of difficult tasks) might be “Excuse me - I’m tired of working!” or “These are too hard! I need help!” The above study provided empirical evidence that aberrant behaviors can serve communicative functions. The operable term at this point is can. One then poses the next question: “Would a functional analysis of problem behaviors always result in identifying the problem behavior as serving a communicative function? Or are there problem behaviors that currently do not serve a communicative function?” Making assumptions that a problem behavior is always maintained because of its communicative function certainly would have ramifications for prescription based on such assumptions. Therefore, the answer to such a question is not merely esoteric, but has important implications for practitioners. A useful distinction may allow applied personnel to program treatment more effectively on the basis of the function of the behavior (in either the social and/or physical environmental contexts) as well as to identify a host of alternate replacement behaviors. In asking the question, “Are all problem behaviors communicative in function?“, one needs to generate a basic working definition of communication. Other writers have indicated that one can infer communicative intent by examining language from within the social context (Donnellan et al., 1984). However, such an inference cannot be construed as an

CIPANI

operational definition of communicative inten or communication. An operational definitior of communication should lead to consistency ir classifying phenomena as examples or non examples of communication. If the measure. ment system requires that inferences be drawn on the part of an observer, such a system would lead to lower levels of reliability in identifying or classifying such phenomena. In analyzing the possible communicative function of problem behaviors, there lies danger in non-operant analysis. Inferences about what a behavior means have never been the hallmark of behavior analysis. Interpretations regarding the message value or intent of any behavior might rely on an examination of the response topography (despite cautions to the contrary), and to a lesser extent, a focus on the environmental context of the behavior. Intent is also a term that poses a problem for operationalization. In order to determine if all problem behaviors serve a communication function, one should define communication in terms of a temporal relationship between observable events and examine the relevant controlling variables, both antecedent and consequent to communicative behavior. This paper will attempt to establish whether the communicative function of problem behavior can be reliably determined by an analysis of the controlling variables. I will define two different types of reinforcement contingencies and the two types of operant behaviors. A model for determining the communicative nature of a problem behavior will then be generated. Based on this model the issues of the communicative function of any behavior can be resolved. Additionally, problem behaviors that may not currently serve as communicative functions can be identified readily. Implications for prescription based on this model will then be drawn. Operant Contingencies

and Operant Behavior

Two Types of Reinforcement

Contingencies

All operant behaviors can be maintained or

The CommunicativeFunction Hypothesis increased by two operations: positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement. Positive reinforcement involves an event following a behavior in a contingent fashion, which results in subsequent maintenance or increase in the level of the behavior. Negative reinforcement involves an event that is terminated as a function of the occurrence of some behavior, with a subsequent increase or maintenance in the level of that behavior. Such contingencies have been specified elsewhere and have been used to analyze the controlling of problem behaviors (Iwata, variables Dorcey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman. 1982; Repp, Felce, & Barton, 1988). Two Types of Operant Behavior

One can also look at two types of operant behavior maintained by reinforcement contingencies (Skinner, 1957). One type of operant behavior is termed verbal behavior. Skinner operationally defined verbal behavior as any behavior that achieves its effect on the environment through the behavior of some other persons (Skinner, 1957, pp. l-2). In more simple terms, verbal behavior can be considered any behavior that is reinforced through the mediation of another person or organism (Cipani, 1988; Michael, 1982; Sundburg, 1983). Verbal behaviors are behaviors that access reinforcement indirectly. The speaker contacts the mediating agency, who in turn contacts the environment. The result of such contact reinforces the behavior of the speaker (Vargas, 1988). The maintenance of verbal behavior implies a reliable relation between behavior and its mediation by another person (a trained audience/listener) in a desired fashion (i.e., results in reinforcement of the verbal behavior). Given this definition, verbal behavior is not synonymous with vocal behavior. Vocal behavior is one form, albeit a common one, of verbal behavior. Other forms of verbal behavior can be gestures, hand or body movements, sounds, proximity to audience/listener, etc. The response topography alone does not define verbal behavior.

241

Rather, the relation between behavior and the access to reinforcement does. Examples of verbal behaviors are found in everyday life. An individual is hungry and wishes to obtain food. That individual’s verbal repertoire is shaped and maintained when he learns to access food from others by engaging in some behavior that produces the desired effect via the behavior of another person. To reiterate, the request need not be vocal. Of course, in our society, vocal behavior is the most common example of verbal behavior. In the absence of vocal behavior, other forms of motor behavior can occur and be reliably maintained by accessing a desired event through another person’s response to that behavior. For example, a child may point to his mouth when hungry and reliably receive food from his mother. Another child may whine or grimace when he wants an extra cookie, and consequently receive an extra cookie from his parent(s). Both examples share the characteristics defining verbal behavior, in that both children access food through an audience that responds reliably to such behaviors. Although the form of the response differs in each example, the functional outcome is the same in both examples. The above examples illustrate behaviors that are positively reinforced. Verbal behaviors can also be shapes and maintained by negative reinforcement operations (Carr, Newsom, & Binkoff, 1980; Repp, Felce, & Barton, 1988; Weeks & Gaylord-Ross, 1981). For example, an individual who wishes to terminate an aversive event (e.g., someone behaving in an obnoxious manner) can exhibit a variety of verbal behaviors, that can be reinforced by the termination of the obnoxious behavior. In this situation, saying, “Excuse me - could you be more pleasant?“, is a chain of behaviors that is occasioned in this situation as a result of the listener performing the desired behavior (i.e., being more pleasant). Such a chain represents a type of verbal behavior, in that its environmental effect is mediated by the audience/listener (person stops behavior). Again the response need not be vocal in order

242

ENNIO

for such a behavior to be a verbal behavior. The same effect may be achieved by the speaker frowning at the obnoxious person, with subsequent termination of the obnoxious behaviors. Both examples of verbal behavior are negatively reinforced. Therefore, verbal behaviors can be maintained by both positive and negative reinforcement operations. The above examples are verbal behaviors that are maintained as a result of accessing indirectly a positive or negative reinforcer. Such behaviors are called mands (Michael, 1982; Skinner, 1957; Sundberg, 1983). Mands occur to motivational conditions, termed unconditioned establishing operations (UEO) or conditioned establishing operations (CEO) (Michael, 1988). These motivational conditions such as deprivation and aversive stimulation momentarily alter the effectiveness with which certain environmental events can function as reinforcers, and therefore begin to establish functional control over certain behaviors that efficiently access such reinforcers under those conditions. The UEO is restricted to unconditioned reinforcement (e.g., food, water) while the CEO represents the motivational state for conditioned reinforcers which includes a host of events, including social attention, smiles, conservation, toys, etc. (Michael, 1988). Not all verbal behaviors are mands. Other verbal behaviors have different antecedent controlling stimuli and different consequent stimuli that maintain them. However, the mand is distinguished from other verbal behaviors in that it accesses a specific reinforcer(s) and is therefore the most relevant verbal relation when considering problem aberrant behavior(s). If verbal behaviors are any operant behaviors that are maintained by indirect access to reinforcement, what are non-verbal behaviors? Non-verbal behaviors are any behaviors that are maintained as a result of their direct effect on the physical environment. Such behaviors contact their physical environment directly (Michael, 1988; Vargas, 1988). In contrast, verbal behaviors achieve their effects

CIPANI

indirectly, i.e., through a mediator. The two different types of operants, verbal and nonverbal, are illustrated with the following example. A child gets hungry. Under some conditions, with parents present, the child may make a request to the mother for various types of food. Upon such a request, the mother brings the food to the child, thereby maintaining the probability of such requests in the future. Especially with young children, the request may not be vocal (e.g., gestures, signs, screams, tantrums, etc). In contrast, in the absence of his parents, the child may open the refrigerator door and take out an apple (and eat it). That chain of behaviors is maintained by direct access to the event (eating). Both behaviors (requesting and taking food from the refrigerator) achieve the same effect; the child eats. However, the access to the reinforcer is different. Non-verbal behaviors can also be shaped and maintained by both positive and negative reinforcement contingencies. The above example illustrates positive reinforcement as the operable paradigm. An example of negative reinforcement contingencies for problem behavior is given in the following hypothetical situation. An individual wishes to have quiet in a noisy area (aversive stimulus present). He/ she can do either one of two things: walk away from the area (direct removal of aversive or exhibit some other behavior stimulus), (e.g., say “Quiet, please”) that has everyone quieten down (indirect removal of aversive stimulus).

Analyzing

Environmental

Functions:

A Typology Some analyses focus on examining the nature of problem behaviors either in terms 01 rate of behavior and its response topography alone (which constitutes an inadequate analy. sis). More sophisticated assessments attempt tc analyze the rate and response topography wit1 respect to the type of reinforcement contin-

The Communicative

gency operable. What is lacking in the latter example is an understanding of how the behavior achieves its effect, indirectly or directly. This analysis of reinforcer access will lead to a better understanding of the controlling variables of problem behavior. The following diagnostic format is offered to remedy that deficit. Given the two types of operant behaviors, verbal and non-verbal, as well as the two types of reinforcement contingencies, positive and negative, one can establish four types of environmental functions. Such environmental functions can be useful to categorize the type of behavior problem encountered (see Figure 1). Figure 2 provides operational definitions of

Indirect

Direct

1

Type II

Type Ill

Type IV

Tvpe

maintaining -positive reinforcement contingencies z negative

r

Figure 1. Environmental operational definitions.

functions.

categorization

Type I: direct positive reinforcement contingencies (non-verbal behaviors) behavior accesses directly an event in the physical environment Type II: indirect positive reinforcement contingencies (verbal behavior) behavior accesses indirectly an event (through the mediation of another) in the physical or social environment Type Ill: direct negative reinforcement continaencies (non-verbal behaviors) behavik terminates or postpones directly an event in the physical environment Type IV

: indirect negative reinforcement contingencies (verbal behavior) -+ behavior terminates or postpones indirectly an event (through the mediation of another) in the physical or social environment

Figure 2. Environmental

functions.

and

Function Hypothesis

24:

each type of environmental function. The reader is to assume the definition of reinforcement in Figure 2 is the same as that provided previously in this paper. Examples of the Four Environmental

Functions

Pica is a behavior problem that can be used as a good illustration of a Type I environmental function. With pica, the access to reinforcement is most often direct, in that the behavior of putting something into the mouth is followed immediately by the desired environmental result (having access to that object in the mouth). The behavior achieves its effect directly with the physical environment, and the contingency in effect is positive reinforcement. Many stereotypic and self-injurious behaviors maintained by sensory stimulation (Baumeister & Forehand, 1973; Berkson & Davenport, 1962; Wolery, Kirk, & Gast, 198.5; Carr, 1977) would be viewed as serving Type I functions under the present analysis. However, in some situations, pica can serve a different environmental function and be maintained by indirect access to a reinforcer (Type II function). A possible environmental function would involve access to teacher or staff attention as a result of the person engag ing in pica. In this circumstance, the maintaining variable is teacher attention, which is often a conditioned reinforcer for other reinforcers (e.g., giving of desired objects, hugs, etc). Therefore, in this example, the level of occurrence of pica is not maintained by the direct environmental result, i.e., the ingestion of the item in the mouth. Rather, its occurrence is being maintained by indirect access to other events, whose access is mediated by staff, teacher. Spitting food out can be an example of a Type III environmental function. The behavior, spitting food out, occurs under conditions in which something unpleasant is in the mouth. Spitting it out involves direct removal of the aversive environmental event, i.e., the removal of the object from the mouth. The

244

ENNIO

response of the staff to such behavior, whatever that may be, is not the controlling variable (and attempts to manipulate such will prove to be ineffective). Spitting food out can also provide indirect removal of an aversive event(s) and thereby serve a different environmental function (Type IV). In this case, the removal of the food would not be the negative reinforcer. Perhaps under conditions in which a person wants other persons removed, spitting food out in a dining area produces such a result (people move away from the spitter). Staff will probably move other clients away from the spitter. As soon as these people leave his area, the individual stops spitting food out. However, the return of people to his lunch area occasions the behavior again. It is easy to see that behavior is being reinforced by the removal of other people from his territory (negative reinforcement) and that such an event is accessed by the mediation of this behavior by the staff. In some circumstances, the same topography of aberrant behavior can serve multiple functions under different antecedent conditions. Aggression exhibited by a child on the playground when other children approach him may result in those children leaving that child alone. In contrast, aggression exhibited while snacks are given to other children in the classroom may result in the aggressive child obtaining the snacks immediately subsequent to the aggression. In the first condition, aggression would be considered a Type IV function, while aggression serves a Type II function during snack time. The implications for treatment (to be discussed in more detail) are that one cannot program the same contingencies for the same response topography when such a behavior serves two different functions. Are All Behaviors Communicative in Function?

The above typology would classify behaviors with either Type II or Type IV environmental functions as verbal behaviors. If the communicative function of the problem behavior is

CIPANI

analyzed by determining the method of access to the reinforcer(s), being either direct or indirect, one can reliably diagnose the function (given relevant information). If the problem behavior(s) is shaped and maintained through the mediation of someone else (i.e., Type II and Type IV functions), then its current function is communicative (social) in nature. Behavior that is maintained by direct contact with either positive or negative reinforcement contingencies would not be viewed as communicative under the present proposal. How the reinforcer is accessed determines whether an audience (with a history of reinforcement) is or is not maintaining the behavior. Learning to grab a doorknob a certain way and turn it is a behavior that achieves its desired effect directly, and certainly is not communicative in this circumstance. To communicate, one’s behavior needs to come under control of a past reinforcement history with an audience (Skinner, 1957). and in this scenario, an audience is lacking. However, the same response topography can be a verbal behavior if the contingencies are altered. If such a behavior (turning door knob) fails to open the door (as in the case of a locked door), and reliably brings staff out to help open the door after repeated efforts by the child to turn and push the doorknob (proves unsuccessful), it is now a verbal operant, maintained by indirect access to a positive reinforcer (staff’s opening the door). The communicative function of aberrant behaviors has been substantiated empirically (Carr & Durand, 1985a, b; Carr & Newsom, 1988; Durand & Kishi, 1987; Repp et al., 1988). This paper does not suggest that behavior problems are never communicative in function. The experience of many practitioners utilizing a behavior analysis approach, is that many problem behaviors are maintained as a result of social contingencies (i.e., misguided mediation). However. one should not assume that all problem behaviors are communicative in function. Realizing that some problem behaviors’persist because they produce a desired

The

Communicative

environmental effect directly will lead to more effective programming of the relevant contingencies. Taking into account that some behaviors can access reinforcement directly would allow for behavioral assessment efforts to account for the maintenance of those behaviors independent of any current or previous attempts to manipulate social contingencies to decrease that behavior. Sometimes, the contingent behavior of staff, parent or relevant others for problem child behavior are just byproducts of the child attempting to access the reinforcer directly, and are not the cause of such behavior.

Implications

for the Design of Prescription

The above presentation delineates four different types of environmental functions. The same response topography can serve different functions for different clients in different situations. Therefore an analysis of treatment can not be done solely on the basis of response topography. Research reviews addressing the most effective techniques for reducing aggression found in the literature may be “mixing apples with oranges,” by considering problem behaviors that address different functions. In contrast. the use of the environmental function table can provide prescriptive treatment that takes into account the function of the particular behavior. Treatment would be matched to environmental function rather than response topography (Durand. 1986; LaVigna et al., 1989; Repp et al., 1988). The implications for this analysis are to identify which type of environmental function is operative before prescribing treatment. It is quite plausible that the same response topography may serve different environmental functions at different times. For example. occurrences of self-injurious behavior (SIB) in the morning may be maintained by a Type II environmental function. In this scenario, the occurrence of SIB reliably results in the provision of additional cups of coffee during a

Function

Hypothesis

235

morning break period. However, the occurrence of SIB in the afternoon by the same client can best be described as a Type IV environmental function. In this setting, continued occurrence of SIB results in termination of some task during the afternoon setting. And under other circumstances. SIB may serve a Type III function with the same client. For example, the person has a headache and begins hitting his head. As a result of prolonged hitting, the headache eventually goes away (although this relationship may be purely coincidental). Given these three different environmental functions, treatment would be prescribed on the basis of function rather than response topography. Treatment of SIB in the above Type II function would involve differential reinforcement of an alternate verbal behavior (hopefully including prompting and fading techniques). The verbal operant would lead to accessing multiple cups of coffee contingent on continued requests for such, while extinguishing SIB as a verbal operant. Treatment of SIB as the Type IV function would involve differential reinforcement of an alternate verbal operant, e.g., completing small amounts of work followed by a request for access to free-time (or non-work time) while extinguishing SIB. Treatment of SIB as a Type III function hypothesized in the above example might be relaxation, exercise, or medication (aspirin) to reduce the headaches, with the medication accessed either directly and/or indirectly and producing the desired effect. One can not assume that a particular response topography would q :rve a particular function. Carr and McDowe:l (1986) demonstrated that social attention maintained scratching at high levels in three distinct settings with a ten-year-old child. Subsequent removal of contingent social attention brought reduction in this behavior. However. it is conceivable that the occurrence of scratching in another child, or occasional occurrences of scratching in the child cited above may be explained as a behavior that is maintained by a Type III

246

ENNIO

function, i.e., scratching may eventually relieve an itch/pain (Carr & McDowell, 1986). Therefore, the behavior of scratching can be maintained by a Type II or Type III function.

Identifying

Two Sets of “Replacement” Behaviors

Programming alternate “replacement behaviors” can be done with all types of problems by identifying the reinforcer (either positive or negative) and whether it can be accessed directly and/or indirectly. In most circumstances, it is conceivable that this type of analysis can yield two sets of replacement behaviors: indirect access behaviors (socially mediated behaviors) and direct access behaviors. Therefore, although a specific aberrant behavior problem may not be maintained as a result of a history of specific reinforcement with an audience/listener, it does not rule out the potential for a treatment to develop an alternate behavior that is socially mediated. Similarly, aberrant behavior that currently is maintained by an audience producing a specific result can often be treated by identifying a response that can access that result directly. Therefore, it is conceivable that the treatment for the problem behavior can be designed to access the specific reinforcer directly and indirectly. Two sets of acceptable response classes need to be taught. For example, an individual engaging in SIB to access food can be taught to do one of two things: (1) under some conditions (if food is available and staff are not available) the individual directly accesses the desired event by walking over to the refrigerator, taking the food out of the refrigerator and consuming it or (2) under other conditions, an appropriate request response to staff for specific food items is shaped and maintained. Treatment strategies should be directed to developing two different alternative behaviors. For example, problem behaviors serving a Type I function can be decreased by arranging

CIPANI

contingencies for behaviors that produce a Type I or Type II function. Similarly. behaviors serving Type II functions can be reduced by removing aversive events contingent on behaviors that serve a Type II or Type IV function. For example, someone who steals food (Type I function) could be taught a replacement behavior that accesses food through a request (now a Type II function) or could be taught to go to the refrigerator and obtain food directly (Type 1 function). Someone tantrumming to access food (Type 11 function) could be taught to go to the cupboard and get a snack (Type I) when he comes home from school or request food with a non-vocal response (Type II). In point of fact, it is imperative to teach the individual to access reinforcers directly and indirectly. in that an audience for verbal behavior is not always present. By examining behavior in the context of its environmental function, one can see that not all behaviors serve a communicative function. in that some behaviors are maintained by direct access to the reinforcer in the physical environment. The implications for treatment make it imperative that a comprehensive assessment of severe problem behaviors include this type of analysis. Acknowledgemenls - The author wishes to express his appreciation to Drs. Fay Haisley and Brian lwata for their helpful comments on parts of this manuscript.

References Bailey. J. S.. & Pyles, D. A. M. (1YXY). Behavioral diagnostics. In E. Cipani (Ed.), T/w rrecrm~enf ofsr~we behavior disordertr: behavior ma!\‘s~s approach (pp. X5-107). Washmgton. DC: American Association on Mental Retardation. Baumeister. A. A.. & Forehand. R. (1073). Stereotyped acts. In N. Ellis (Ed.). Inren~afrorzul review o/’ research in merrtul rerardatior~. Vol. 6 (pp. 55Y6). New York: Academic Press. Berkson, G., & Davenport. R. K. (lY63). Stereotyped movements of mental defectives I. Initud survey. Americm Jounwl of Memu DeJicierlcy. 6h. X49-852. Carr, E. G. (1977). The motivation of self-injurious behavior: A review of some hypotheses. Psychological BuNelin, 81. X0&816.

The

Communicative

Carr, E. G.. 6i Durand. V. M. (1985a). Reducing behavior problems through functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavror Analysis, 18. 11 I-126. Carr, E. G.. & Durand, V. M. (1985b). The socialcommunicative basis of severe behavior problems in children. In S. Reiss & R. Bootzin (Eds.), Theorerical Issues in behavior rherapy (pp. 219-254). New York: Academic Press. Carr. E. G.. & McDowell, .I. J. (1986). Social control of self-injurious behavior of organic etiology. Behavior Therapy, II. 402-409. Carr. E. G., & Newsom. C. (1988). Demand-related tantrums: Conceptualization and treatment. Behavior Modification. Y, 40-3426. Carr. E., Newsom, C. C.. & Binkoff, J. A. (1980). Escape as a factor in the aggressive behavior of two retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13. IOl177. Cipani. E. (1988). Behavioral analysis language program: theory, assessment and framing practices for personnel working with people wirh severe handicaps. Bellevue. Washington: Edmark Publishers. Donnellan, A. M.. Mirenda, P. L.. Mesaros. R. A.. bz Fassbender. L. L. (1984). Analyzing the communicative functions of aberrant behavior. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 9, 201-212. Durand, V. M. (1986). Self-injurious behavior as intentional communication. In K. Gadow (Ed.) Advances in learning or behavioral disabilities. Volume 3 (pp. 141155). Greenwich, Conn: JAI Press, Inc. Durand, V. M., & Kishi, G. (1987). Reducing severe behavior problems among persons with dual sensory impairments. An evaluation of a technical assistance model. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12. 2-10. Iwata. B. A.. Dorsey, M. F., Slifer. K. J.. Bauman. K. E.. & Richman, G. S. (1982). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Analysis and lnrervention in Developmental Disabiliries. 2. 3-20.

Function

Hypbthesis

24;

LaVigna, G. W.. & Donnellan, A. M. (1986). Alremarives 10 punishmenr: solving behavior problems with non aversive strategies. New York: Irvington Publishers. LaVigna. G. W.. Willis. T. J., & Donnelan, A. M. (1989). The role of positive programming in behavioral treat. ment. In E. Cipani (Ed.) The Trearmenr of severe behavior disorders: behavior analysis approaches (pp. 5-5-84). Washington, D.C.: American Association on Mental Retardation. Michael, J. L. (1988). Establishing operations and the mand. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 6. .%1X. Michael. J. L. (1982). Skinner’s verbal operants: Some new categories. The Anal_vsis of Verbal Behavior, 1. 1. Repp, A. C.. Felce. D.. & Barton. L. E. (1988). Basing the treatment of stereotypic and self-injurious behaviot on hypotheses of their causes. Journal of Appliec; Behavior Analysis, 21. 281-289. Schuler. A. L., & Goetz, L. (1981). The assessment 01 severe language disabilities: Communicative and cogni. tive considerations. Analysis and Intervention in De velopmenral Disabilities, 1. 333-346. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York Appleton-Century-Crofts. Sundberg. M. (1983). Language. In J. L. Matson and S. E Bruening’s (Eds.) Assessing the menrally retarded (pp 285-310). New York: Grune and Stratton. Vargas, E. A. (1988). Event-governed and verbally governed behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 6 11-22. Watzlawick, P., Beavin. J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967) Pragmatics of human communication. New York: W. W Norton & Co. Weeks, M., & Gaylord-Ross, R. (1981). Task difficult) and aberrant behavior in severely handicapped students Journal of Applied Behavior, 14. 449-463. Wolery. M., Kirk, K., & Gast, D. L. (1985). Stereotypic behavior as a reinforcer: Effects and side effects. Journa of Autism and Developmental D&orders, 15, 14’11161