Is Control a Function of Behavior?
Exploring the discourse in the field of applied behavior analysis
Guest Author: Kira Flynn
In Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), the four functions of behavior—attention, escape, access to tangibles, and automatic—are used to categorize behaviors in terms of why they are occurring. This allows practitioners and researchers to develop effective strategies for altering behaviors that are undesired and increasing behaviors that are desired.
Once the function of a behavior is determined, interventions can be used to modify the environment to decrease undesired behavior and encourage more appropriate behavior. In most cases, assessments, whether indirect or direct (i.e., observation, functional analysis), or a combination of two or more types, can accurately identify the function of the behavior. However, assessments testing for a single function may miss behaviors maintained by multiple functions, leading to undifferentiated results. In such cases, utilizing assessments testing for synthesized contingencies may be necessary (Hanley et al., 2014).
Synthesized contingencies refer to behaviors having multiple functions or reasons for occurrence. For instance, a child may tantrum when they are instructed to do their homework. The tantrum may occur not only to avoid the homework but also to gain access to toys or extend iPad time. Understanding synthesized contingencies is vital for behavior analysts to accurately analyze why behaviors are occurring. When we can do this, we can both develop interventions that are more closely tailored to individual needs and address the subtle factors that sometimes influence behavior, resulting in more effective and robust behavior change. With the development of assessments targeted toward behaviors that have multiple functions, such as the Interview-Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis (IISCA), practitioners have recognized nuances involved in classifying behaviors in terms of their functions.
Control
Recently, there have been increased discussions regarding adding control as a possible function of behavior. These discussions have primarily occurred in online discussion boards, on ABA websites, or on podcasts. Many individuals involved in these discussions are practitioners noting the value in adding control as a function, whether it would be beneficial in a clinical context or when talking to caregivers.
When looking into these discussions, I found some sources stating that control is a function of behavior. One website noted that some practitioners keep control as a separate function, whereas others combine it with access to tangibles or attention (How to ABA, 2021). Other websites use the term interchangeably with the function access to tangibles (Differentiated Teaching).
It also appears that the word function is used more loosely in the clinical realm, as any environmental variable or motivating operation can serve as a function of behavior. For example, while discussing if control could work as a function of behavior, one popular ABA website explained that if control is why an individual is engaging in a given behavior, then control is by definition the function of that behavior (Study Notes ABA, 2022).
Why Might Control Be Considered a Function of Behavior?
One argument for control being a function of behavior is that existing functions can oversimplify behavior. In practice, clinicians often encounter behaviors that cannot be neatly categorized, such as merely seeking access to tangibles or escaping demands. Even if a behavior is determined to be maintained by multiple sources of reinforcement, there may be additional variables present which these labels do not cover.
For instance, clients may insist on precise preferences, such as what cup their drink is served in, what toys they play with, and how they play with them. If not provided, they may engage in problem behaviors. If we looked at these situations closely, we could identify potential functions as access to tangibles, escape, and even automatic. However, it can be time consuming and require much effort to do so. In these cases, practitioners may refer to these behaviors as “control” behaviors in an effort to more neatly categorize them, rather than stating that they are maintained by multiple reinforcing variables.
Dr. Greg Hanley developed the “My Way,” or skill-based treatment protocol to decrease problem behavior. While not explicitly stating that control is a function of behavior, the “My Way” protocol targets behaviors that would commonly be described as being maintained by control. This protocol involves teaching a replacement behavior (i.e., “Can I have My Way?”) and reinforcing tolerance of delay or denial to “My Way.” Dr. Hanley’s work in the area of functional- communication training and skill-based treatment has paved the way for more research to be conducted on “control” behaviors.
Why We Should Be Hesitant to Consider Control a Function of Behavior?
Although arguments for control as a function of behavior may be persuasive, it is important to recognize some of the issues that may arise in doing so. Reservations with regards to classifying behaviors as maintained by control, while also held by some practitioners, are primarily held by individuals in academia.
After diving into my search on why or why not control could be considered a function of behavior, I interviewed Dr. Jonathan Fernand, an assistant professor in the School of Behavior Analysis at Florida Institute of Technology. Dr. Fernand has experience in both the clinical and research realms of behavior analysis, and thus could give some perspective on why this term is commonly used in clinical but not in academic settings. “We must be able to understand when, why, and how we are using it, and understand its function,” Dr. Fernand stated when asked about using the term control in clinical practice.
One issue that arises with control as a function of behavior is that “control” behaviors may simply be multiply-controlled behaviors. I previously mentioned synthesized contingencies, which occur when multiple environmental variables reinforce one given behavior.
A second issue that arises with control is mentalism. When attempting to define control, it is easy to fall into a trap of circular reasoning that might sound like, “They’re engaging in that behavior because they want power/control over the situation,” making it hard to define control without using the term control in the definition. Or, if asked why a child is engaging in control behaviors, the answer is typically something like, “Because they don’t feel in control of their environment.”
Control may also be better conceptualized as a mand for compliance. Simply defined, a mand is a verbal request for something that an individual is motivated for. Individuals may mand for access to preferred items, activities, locations, or people; mands may also occur to escape aversive tasks, people, or environments. In these situations, mands occur as a means of accessing or avoiding something, which would mean that the function of the mand fits into the established functions of behavior. Recent research conducted by Rajaraman & Hanley showed two children engaged in problem behavior when adults did not comply with their requests for various items or activities. When looking at control from this viewpoint, we don’t run into the same issue with mentalism. Countercontrol might also be an explanation for why “control” behaviors occur. Countercontrol is a term used by B.F. Skinner which refers to escape or avoidance behaviors that occur in response to the “controller’s” behavior that created an aversive situation. Murray Sidman extended findings on countercontrol, stating that in situations in which aversive control is used, coercion will inevitably lead to countercontrol. Sidman explained that, when individuals cannot escape or avoid aversive control, they will learn how to control the behavior of those controlling them (Sidman, 1989/2000, p. 214). If control behaviors can be conceptualized in a way that aligns with the fundamental principles of behavior analysis, then we should use those explanations and definitions for “control” behaviors we encounter.
Conclusion
There may be utility in using the term control when describing the motivations behind behaviors to caregivers. Behavior analysts should use lay terms while communicating with caregivers, as caregivers are not exposed to the complex terminology used in behavior analysis. In such cases, using simplified language like control can be more effective than explaining behavior using technical language.
However, in doing so, there is a potential for practitioners to become lazy with their use of terminology and concepts. As behavior analysis is a science, it is important for us to be precise in our descriptions. It can be easy to use less-precise terminology when this terminology is more digestible for caregivers, staff, and the community at large.
Dr. Fernand concluded by stating that one of the biggest issues with considering control a function of behavior is that it could dilute the science of behavior analysis and cause issues in practice, which may arise if clinicians settle for using the term control instead of seeking out explanations for why behaviors are occurring.
The discussion of control as a function of behavior, and differences in opinions on this matter between practitioners and those working in academia, highlights the divergence between these career paths, particularly in the use of terminology and conceptualization. More discourse is needed between practitioners and researchers on the term control and its use in behavior analysis. “We need to have a conversation about utility [of the term control,” Dr. Fernand said when asked if it should be used in practice or in research. Dr. Fernand added that we need to engage in discourse and empirically evaluate the extent to which it is pragmatic, as well as the extent to which it aligns with the scientific underpinnings of behavior analysis. In particular, the discussion surrounding control as a function of behavior should include how control is operationally defined and how this definition differs from the four existing functions of behavior. Careful consideration should also be given to how the use of this term might affect behavior-analytic practice and the science of behavior analysis.
