Response Blocking 4y6p39

Response blocking refers to physically preventing a maladaptive behavior from occurring. Examples of maladaptive behavior include self-injury (e.g., eye poking), pica, aggression, throwing objects, loud clapping, inappropriate touching, and mouthing (i.e., placing one's mouth on inedible surfaces). Typically, a clearly visible motor response is required for response blocking to be used. In many cases, maladaptive behaviors are maintained by sensory reinforcement or a desire for tactile, auditory, visual, or other stimulation. As a result, maladaptive behaviors often become habitual, automatic responses that are not easily selfcontrolled. Response blocking is often utilized, therefore, as a means of preventing a maladaptive response and providing to the person that the behavior has occurred. Because maladaptive behaviors can also be maintained by attention, tangible reinforcement, and escape from aversive situations, however, these factors must be considered carefully as well when deg a response-blocking intervention. Response blocking is typically conducted by a teacher or other person who works closely with a client in situations where a maladaptive behavior is most likely to occur. As a first step, the behavior in question is operationally defined so that occurrences of the behavior may be accurately targeted. The behavior and its definition should be specific, motorically based, and clear to those who will engage in response blocking. Ideally, teachers and relevant others are trained to observe and accurately record the maladaptive behavior. In addition, they are taught the specific response-blocking gesture that will be used to prevent the maladaptive response as well as ways of addressing untoward consequences (e.g., aggression). Following this training procedure, a baseline period is implemented to record frequency, severity, duration, latency, and other relevant factors of the maladaptive behavior. Care should be taken to note times when the behavior is most common as well as its common antecedents (e.g., extended work time, frustration, hunger). In this way, response blocking can be used at selected times of the day rather than the entire day. However, if the maladaptive behavior is truly automatic and reinforced by sensory consequences, then response blocking may be necessary for extended periods of time. Following baseline, response blocking and any accompanying treatments (e.g., functional communication training) begin. The person conducting the response blocking procedure typically places himself or herself near the client, often in a sitting position, and interacts with the client in some way. In many cases, response blocking is integrated with educational programs but can be used in self-care, recreational, or other situations as well. Whenever the client begins to engage in the maladaptive behavior, the teacher physically blocks the behavior from occurring. For example, a client who picks up an inedible substance and begins to place it in his or her mouth may be prevented from doing so by a teacher who blocks the mouth and gently guides the hand away. In many cases, this preventive behavior can be accompanied by verbal to enhance the effect (e.g., “, you do not eat lint”). In general, the procedure is conducted in a matter-of-fact and quick manner so as not to further reward the maladaptive behavior via attention. During the response-blocking phase, the teacher or an independent observer records the frequency or other relevant factors of the maladaptive behavior. The data are then examined over time to see if the procedure is effective and whether it needs modification. In the case of pica, for example, it is possible that a simple touch of the hand is necessary to prevent the response. In other cases, a more forceful blocking of the maladaptive response is necessary.

The final phase of response blocking involves fading. In this phase, the teacher continues to block the response but does so in a less intrusive way (e.g., shadowing a person's hand). If treatment gains are maintained, then less intrusive blocking continues until very little physical intervention is necessary. Indeed, response blocking may progress to the point where only verbal is necessary to arrest the maladaptive behavior. Eventually, of course, one final goal is for the person to control the maladaptive behavior himself or herself without external control or . Another final goal is to generalize treatment effects from the initial training setting to more naturalistic settings and to other persons.

RESEARCH BASIS The behavior analysis literature is rich with singlecase experimental designs that the effectiveness of response blocking for treating various maladaptive behaviors. Response blocking has been evaluated as a single procedure and as a component of a larger treatment protocol. In most cases, the procedure is supplemented with other interventions for people with developmental disorders, such as differential reinforcement of other behavior, punishment, and functional communication training.

RELEVANT TARGET POPULATION Response blocking is primarily used for people with maladaptive behaviors with severe developmental disorders such as severe or profound mental retardation, autism, and neurological impairment. However, it could be useful as well for any clinical population (e.g., schizophrenia) that engages in maladaptive motor behavior (e.g., perserverations).

COMPLICATIONS A key drawback of response blocking is that it is extremely labor intensive, requiring a teacher to physically block a high-frequency maladaptive behavior for extended periods of time. As a result, response blocking may be reserved for times when the behavior is most frequent or for intermittent times during the day. Another key drawback of the procedure is that initial success may decline when the physical blocking is faded or withdrawn. This often occurs with entrenched behaviors that have been reinforced over long periods of time. In this case, very gradual fading, lengthy extensions of response blocking, prosthetic devices (e.g., goggles, helmets), or some combination with other treatment procedures may be necessary.

CASE ILLUSTRATION “Alan” was a 17-year-old male with severe mental retardation in a large residential facility. Over the past 15 months, Alan had begun to scratch his arm repeatedly to the point that serious damage was occurring. A functional analysis indicated that the behavior was due to sensory reinforcement. Baseline measures revealed that most of the scratching occurred prior to lunch and dinner and following educational and self-care tasks. As a result, a combination of procedures was used. Alan's scratching was prevented by having a staff member gently move his hand away from the arm area that was most often damaged. In addition, Alan was presented with a choice of meals and allowed to play video games (a competing response) prior to lunch and dinner. Treatment reduced scratching by 90% in 3 weeks, and gains were maintained even following fading of the response-blocking component.

—Christopher A. Kearney, Lisa Linning, and Krisann Alvarez Further Reading

Entry Citation: Kearney, Christopher A., Lisa Linning, and Krisann Alvarez. "Response Blocking." Encyclopedia of Behavior Modification and Cognitive Behavior Therapy. 2007. SAGE Publications. 15 Apr. 2008. .